BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 31^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-
   1. Direct the Ops to immediately refund the full amount of purchase along with 18% p.a., interest.
   2. To direct the Ops to pay cost of litigation and other expenses for the sum of Rs.25,000/- only.
   3. To direct the Ops to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss, mental torture and harassment.
   4. Any other relief as this Hon’ble Forum may consider fit and proper.
2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant finding the car suitable for her and trusting the inspection report made by the OP1 has decided to purchase the pre-owned car-REVA-1  on 07.12.2019 from OP1 and paid Rs.70,000/- and Rs.4,500/- + Rs.5,900/- to the Ops as service charges.

3. While purchasing the car the Ops have given assurance to the complainant that the car is in good condition and OP1 also promised to provide her with an inspection report. The complainant drove back home with the car on 07.12.2019 and she drove it a couple of times for few kilometers around the vicinity of the house. After purchase of the car the OP1 has failed to issue inspection report.  The car met with accident on 16.12.2019.  Immediately the complainant has contacted the OP1. Inspite of multiple calls and email and whatsapp messages to OP1 they have not at all responded.
4. It is further grievance of the complainant that the Ops have defrauded this complainant by charging a huge sum of money for selling a defective car without any intention of repairing or replacing it.  The delivered car is of no use to the complainant as it is defective and the complainant has not even started using it fully. So the complainant wants to get full refund for her purchase.
5. It is further grievance of the complainant that she has suffered financial loss, and severe mental stress because of receiving a defective car from the Ops and subsequent failure by OP1 to repair it permanently or replace it.  This is totally wrong and unjust action by the Ops and it amounts to cheating fraud as well as negligence and gross deficiency in promised service. Providing false inspection report with a motive to facilitate a sale amounts to fraud and gross deficiency of service and the customer have all the right and entitlement to get the full refund of sale amount and further to get compensation for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by her.
6. It is further grievance of the complainant that it is the duty of the Ops to provide a genuine and defect free inspection report to the complainant but it has miserably failed to do so amounting to gross deficiency in service. Even the way of handling the consumer complaint by it shows great carelessness, malafide and fraudulent intention on its part to defraud the complainant.
7. It is further grievance of the complainant that she was got cheated and her trust is breached because she relied on the false inspection report of the OP1 about the quality of the car.  On the contrary it sold a defective car and failed to provide any help or resolution for the problem faced even though there was an obligation on its party and it was legally bound to do so. The complainant has also sent a legal notice to the OP1, but she has not received any fruitful response or resolution from the Ops. Hence the complaint.
8. In response to the notice, OP1 remained absent.  It is pertinent to note here that when our predecessors in this commission has directed the complainant to clarify who is the RC owner and to produce the RC book.  After that the complainant has impleaded the previous owner of the vehicle OP2. The OP2 appeared before this Commission and filed version.
9. It is the case of the OP2 that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The allegations made in the complaint are false unfounded and incorrect and the OP has denied and disputed the facts.  This OP is neither a necessary and nor a proper party to this proceedings and on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is the specific case of the OP2 that she has sold the car to OP1 on 07.12.2019 and the OP1 after due verification from the experts has fixed the price of Rs.70,000/- to the car which was agreed by the OP2 and has signed the Form No.21 on 07.12.2019.  On the date of sale the vehicle was running smoothly, there is no deficiency of service rendered by this OP at all. The complainant has verified the vehicle and satisfied herself before purchasing and has bought it.  Since 2019 she had no issues. The complainant has used the vehicle. The complainant has not purchased the vehicle from this OP. The relevant documents issued by the RTO speaks volumes about the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant. The OP2 has denied all the other allegations made in the complaint and also pleaded her ignorance about the transaction took place between the complainant and OP1.
11. It is further case of the OP2 that there is no cause of action against this OP2. There is no deficiency in service on the OP2 and there is no allegation in the complaint.  This OP2 is not liable to compensate the complainant. There are no merits in the complaint. Hence OP2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
12. The complainant has filed her affidavit evidence and relies on 07 documents.  Affidavit evidence of OP2 has been filed and OP2 relies on 02 documents.
13. Heard the arguments of both the parties.    Perused the written arguments filed by OP2.
14. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

15. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  In the Negative

Point No.2: In the Negative

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

16. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, evidence, written arguments of OP2 and documents filed by both the parties.
17. The complainant has purchased the pre-owned car REVA1 on 07.12.2019 from the OP1 by trusting its inspection report for Rs.70,000/- and she has paid another Rs.4,500/- + Rs.5,900/- to the OP1 as service charge.  While purchasing the car the OP have given assurance that the car is in good condition and he has also promised the complainant to provide with the inspection report. The complainant has drove the car back to her home on 07.12.2019 and further drove the car for couple of times for few kilometers around the vicinity of the house.  The car was met with accident on 16.12.2019. Immediately the complainant has contacted the OP1. Inspite of repeated request multiple calls and emails and whatsapp messages the OP1 did not respond. Finally she also got issued legal notice to the OP1.
18. In support of her contention the complainant has filed her affidavit evidence, reiterated all the allegations made in the complaint, she has relied on 7 documents. Ex.P1 is the inspection report, Ex.P2 is the complaints details, Ex.P3 is the payment acknowledgement receipt, Ex.P4 is the bank account statement and Ex.P5 is the legal notice issued to the OP1 by the complainant, Ex.P6 is the email communication and photographs and Ex.P7 is the blog from OP1.
19. On the other hand the OP2 in order to prove her contention has filed her affidavit evidence and relied on two documents Ex.R1 and R2. Ex.R1 is the payment acknowledgement receipt dated 07.12.2019 and Ex.R2 is the delivery note. As per Ex.R2 the complainant herein has received the car in dispute on 07.12.2019 at 11.30 am. The OP2 has clearly stated that there is no privity of contract between her and the complainant, no services rendered by her to the complainant. When there is no service rendered by this OP2 the question of deficiency does not arise. She has sold the car to OP1 by its delivery note dated 07.12.2019 as per Ex.R1 and R2.
20. The OP2 further taken the contention that the principle CAVEAT EMPTOR comes into play that buyer be aware the complainant should have had the car checked before buying the same.  The complainant has also not at all stated any defect in the report of OP1.  The complainant without placing the report and in the absence of a specific plea in the complaint she cannot say that the report is bad in law. The bounden duty of the complainant is to purchase anything to satisfy herself before doing so, it is the specific case of the complainant that the report issued by OP1 is defective. Before purchasing the car in question the complainant has accepted the report and acted on it in such a scenario it cannot now be said the report is false.  The complainant does not even say that she was having valid driving license.  The complainant further failed to produce any further report relating to the defect in the car. It is not necessary that for purchasing the car the report does not become the basis. This OP2 is nothing to do with the report. The car was in good condition and it is sufficient. There is no allegation against this OP as to what defective service is rendered. The car was examined by the complainant and after satisfying the same she has purchased the car, she has used it sometime. The alleged accident is not due to the defect in the car. There is no document placed in this regard. The car is used till 2022. Now it came to the knowledge of this OP that the complainant has already sold the car to some third party and she has not having any subsisting right to maintain this complaint.
21. It is pertinent here that except the delivery note Ex.R2 produced by the OP2 the complainant has not produced any document to show that after taking delivery of the car the documents like RC and the insurance were transferred to her name.  It is also undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased the car only on the basis of the inspection report and the assurance given by OP1. The complainant being a buyer must be aware as per the principle CAVATE EMPTOR she should have had the car checked before buying the same.
22. It is pertinent to note here that except some photographs the complainant has not at all produced any documents to show that the car was met with accident on 16.12.2019 and it was due to the defect in the car. The complainant would have got inspected the car immediately after the accident by a competent IMV inspector.  The complainant would have got the report from the IMV inspector as per the motor vehicle act, whether the accident was occurred due to the mechanical defect of the vehicle or any human negligence in driving the vehicle.  The complainant neither produced any expert report nor the inspection report issued by any competent IMV inspector to show that the accident was occurred due to the mechanical defect in the vehicle.  The complainant has not even produced the RC i.e., Registration Certificate of the vehicle to know who is the owner of the vehicle at the time of filing this complaint or after filing of this complaint. Inspite of the specific direction issued by this Commission directing the complainant to produce the RC of the vehicle she has not produced any vehicle documents or insurance documents.  Ex.P2 to P6 produced by the complainant are only the acknowledgement and the bank statement and the legal notice and the email communications.
23. On the other hand the Ex.R1 and R2 produced by the OP2, clearly discloses that the complainant herein has taken delivery of the vehicle on 07.12.2019 at 11.30 am., from the OP2 after paying Rs.70,000/-.  Admittedly the accident occurred as per the say of the complainant on 16.12.2019 when the car was in possession of the complainant.  The OP2 being the previous owner is not at all held liable for anything happened after taking delivery of the vehicle by the complainant. The complainant has failed to establish that the OP1 and 2 have played fraud and has sold defective car to her after collecting huge amount from her. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint. Therefore we answer point No.1 and point No.2 in the Negative.
24. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed. No costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 31^ST day of AUGUST, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;