BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.9/2014

Dated this the  6^th  day of September 2017

(Date of Institution: 03.02.2014)

K.G. Prakash, son of P. Govindaraj,               

175A, Kumalankuttai, V. Chatram,       

Erode – 11.                             

….     Complainant

vs

1.  Ford India Private Limited rep. by its   

     Regional Manager, Regional Office South   

     Block 1B, Ist Floor, RMZ Millenia Business Park

     143, Dr. M.G.R. Road, North Veeranam Salai,

     Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096.

2. MPL Ford, Authorised Dealer,

    Ford India Private Limited rep by its

    General Manager,   

    101, Chozan Nagar, Near RTO Office

    100 feet road, Mudaliarpet

    Puducherry – 605 004.

                                       ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

Tmt.  D. KAVITHA,  B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Thiru R. Saravanan, Advocate    

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:  Thiru S. P. Vasudevan, Advocate

O R  D  E  R

(by Thiru A. Asokan, President)

              This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act for directing the opposite parties to deliver a new Ford New Fiesta Titanium Car of same description by taking back the delivered card in dispute from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs as compensation for physical sufferings, mental agony due to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of opposite parties and to pay cost of this proceedings. 

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant purchased a Ford New Fiesta Titanium +, 1.5 DSL, car bearing Chasis No. MAJ2XXMRJ2BM19147 for Rs.10,62,762/- from the second opposite party on 08.02.2012.  The registration number of car is PY 01 BP 2992.  During the purchase, while inspecting the vehicle, he doubted that it was showroom display vehicle because the scratches in driver side door step and slight rusting in few portions of the car.  The second opposite party convinced that the complainant's doubts are untrue and it was a fresh car from factory.  The complainant after using the said car for 10 days, he felt that he had been given false information and misguided by the second opposite party with a dishonest intention to sell the damaged car with artful coverage of damages.  The complainant sent a E-mail to the first opposite party on 24.2.2012 claiming replacement of new car.  On 25.02.2012 the first opposite party reply for the same and stated that the second opposite party will get back the complainant shortly.  Despite complainant's repeated demands with the opposite parties, they have lethargically failed to complainant's grievance.  On 16.4.2012 the petitioner sent a E mail to first opposite party that the car was inspected by one Subburaj, Regional Sales Manager and it was revealed that the said car was actually damaged in the Thane hurricane in the second opposite party's yard and body work had been carried out.  The complainant further stated that after taking much time, the second opposite party came up with a concocted story in the E mail dated 14.12.2012 that a huge discount of Rs.65,000/- was passed from his side for the same.  The complainant stated that the said amount was deducted only for the reason that at the time of purchase of the car, it was previous year make.  However, the second opposite party was admitting in the mail that there were abrasions in the roof of the said car at the time of purchase.  The complainant further stated that the petitioner owns a Petrol Bunk, Gas Service Agency and Real Estate Busienss and he has no necessity to purchase a damaged car for deduction of any amount.  The second opposite party at the advent itself induced the petitioner to sell the said car suppressing the damages, with a dishonest intention to deceive the petitioner and made the petitioner to sustain loss and undergoing severe physical and mental sufferings.  It is further stated by the complainant that he is keeping the said car unused in his safe custody.  The complainant sent a legal notice on 02.02.2013 to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties having received the notice neither fulfilled the demand nor replied.  The act of the opposite party in selling a damaged car as a brand new fresh car is illegal, unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.  Hence, this complaint. 

3. The reply version filed by the second  opposite party adopted by first opposite party briefly discloses the following:

          The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had purchased a Ford New Fiesta Titanium Car, vide registration No. Py-01-BP-2992.  It is submitted by the opposite parties that the year of manufacture of the complainant’s car is at the end of 2011.  The vehicle was kept at the showroom.  It is further submitted by the opposite parties that the complainant came in the first week of February 2012 and expressed his desire and willingness to buy that car.  The 2^nd opposite party informed him and also showed the minor scratch on the roof top and the car is of the year 2011.  At that point of time the complainant conceded and said he would like to take the same car if the scratch is being removed and also requested for a discount on the price.  Immediately the 2^nd opposite party referred the matter with their Head Office who have asked the opposite party to offer a discount of
Rs. 65,000/- and also to remove the scratch by giving a free exterior polish pack coating and then deliver the car.  The same was informed to the complainant and he said that he has no objection in taking delivery of the car and also demanded this opposite party that he has come all the way frrm Erode and within a day the vehicle has to be completed even with the procedures with the RTO office and handed over. The request of the complainant was accepted and on the same day the car was prepared for delivery and sent to RTO for registration purpose and thereafter with all satisfaction the complainant took delivery of the same to his home town.  This opposite party further stated that during the month of April 2012 the complainant came to Chennai during that time this opposite party had met the complainant and asked whether there is any identification regarding the minor scratch on the roof top of the car, the complainant had informed the opposite party that there was no such scratch or identification found in the said car.  Subsequent to that the complainant had regularly made his service with the Ford service centre, namely Rajashree Automotive Pvt Ltd at Erode on 10.07.2012, 13.08.2012, 08.07.2013 and 23.0.2013 respectively.  During those periods the complainant never whispered anything about fault or service or damage in the said car.  In such circumstances, it is clear and evident that the principal company has manufactured the car and supplied to this opposite party after making a thorough check about the performance of the said car.  In view of these explanations the allegations made by the complainant as against the opposite party cannot be taken into any least consideration by this Hon’ble Forum.  It is further stated by the opposite party that after a period of two years now the complainant with a malafide intention to grab this opposite party came with different speculation by filing this complaint as against this opposite party.  Further there is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4. The complainant himself examined as CW1 and marked Exs. C1 to C7.  On the side of opposite parties, one Govindarajalu, Senior Manager of OP2 office has been examined as RW1 and through him Ex.R3 Authorisation letter was marked.  Exs. R1 and R2 are marked by the complainant during his cross-examination.    

5.       Points for determination are:

1. Whether the Complainant is the  Consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties indulged in Unfair Trade Practice as alleged by the complainant?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.  Point No.1:

          The complainant purchased one Ford New Fiesta 1.5 DSL, Chasis Number MAJ2XXMRJ2BM19147 from the second opposite party on 08.02.2012 vide Ex.C1 manufactured by first opposite party.  Hence,  the complainant is a consumer as against the opposite parties.

          7. Point No.2:

The complainant alleged that he has purchased a Ford New Fiesta Titanium +, 1.5 DSL Car from the first opposite party on 08.02.2012 for Rs.10,62,762/- vide Ex.C1.  The said car was registered with the Registration Department under Registration No. PY 01 BP 2992 vide Ex.C2.  The complainant further alleged that the second opposite party sold a showroom display vehicle and the car was having scratches in driver side door step and slight rusting in few portions by convincing him that it was a fresh car from factory.   The complainant sent an E-mail to the first opposite party on 25.02.2012 vide Ex.C5 and claimed replacement of new car by taking back the damaged car.  The said Email was duly replied by the second opposite party vide Ex.C6.  The complainant submitted that on 16.04.2012 he sent a mail to the first opposite party that the car was inspected by one Subburaj, Regional Sales Manager and it was revealed that the said car was actually damaged very badly in the Thane  cyclone in the second opposite party's yard and body work has been carried out.  While so, on 14.12.2012 the complainant received a mail from second opposite party that based on the consent of complainant, a sum of Rs.65,000/- was passed for the minor abrasions in the roof since it was a 2011 manufactured vehicle.  The complainant stated that he owns a petrol bunk, Gas Service Agency and also doing real estate business, he has no necessity to purchase a damaged car for deduction of any amount.  The above act of the opposite parties made the complainant to sustain loss and physical and mental sufferings.  Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 02.02.2012 through his Counsel at Erode claiming replacement of car vide Ex.C3.  The said legal notice was acknowledged by the opposite parties vide Ex.C4.  However, there was no reply sent by the opposite parties for the said legal notice.  Hence, the complainant filed this complaint claiming replacement of car and compensation. 

8. The opposite parties resisted the contention of the complainant by alleging that the vehicle was kept at the show room and it was the end of 2011 manufactured car.  Further alleged that at the time of purchase, it was showed to the complainant that minor scratch on the roof top, the same was conceded by the complainant and stated that he would like to take the same car if the scratch is being removed and also requested for a discount on the price.  Therefore, the opposite parties gave a discount of Rs.65,000/-  and also removed the scratch by giving a free exterior policy pack coating  and then delivered the car.  The complainant also said no objection in taking delivery of the car.   The opposite parties submitted that during the month of April 2012, the complainant came to Chennai and the second opposite party met the complainant and asked whether there is any identification regarding the minor scratch on the roof top of the car.  The complainant informed that there was no scratch identification in the car.  Subsequently, the complainant subjected the car for regular service on 10.07.2012, 13.08.2012, 08.07.2012 and 23.07.2013 respectively and does not whispered anything about fault or damage in the said car.  After a period of two years, the complainant came with this complaint with malafide intention while there was no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties. 

 9. This Forum carefully perused the materials available on record and the submissions made by the Counsels for both the parties.  On perusal of complaint as well as reply version, there is no dispute with regard to the purchase of Ford New Fiesta Car by the complainant from the second opposite party.  Similarly, there is no dispute of any manufacturing defect as well as manufacturing date of the car.  The complainant stated that the car purchased by him was having scratches in driver side door step and slight rusting in few portions of the car.  The above contention was vehemently objected by the Opposite parties and stated that the alleged scratches were informed to the complainant at the time of his visit to the show room and also stated that the car was manufactured in the year 2011 end and it is a showroom car.  The complainant accepted for the same and demanded discount in the total price of the car and free exterior polish pack coating to remove the scratches.     

          10. To ascertain the facts, this Forum perused the evidence adduced by the complainant and observed that the complainant / CW1 during his cross-examination has admitted that "I had seen the typical car that I purchased in the showroom………I have been given a discount of Rs.65,000/- on the invoice because the car of the model of 2011.  At the time of selling the car, the opposite parties have told me that there was a small portion of the back side were some marks are available and which can be removed off by rubbing and polishing subsequently."  Further the complainant admitted that he noticed while purchasing the car from OP2 that there are scratches in driver side door step and slight rusting in few portion of the car.  From the above evidence itself, we infer that the complainant had earlier knowledge about the scratches and rusting in the car. 

          11. Moreover, on perusal of Ex.C5, the complainant sent mail on 25.02.2012 to the OP1 alleging the defect in the car.  In the mail he has stated that  "Ford and the distributor MPL Cars have failed to respond in a satisfactory manner for the last two months".  Whereas, as per Ex.C1, the complainant purchased the car  only on 08.02.2012.  Since the car was purchased only on 08.02.2012, the mail given by the complainant on 25.02.2012 regarding the complaint stating that not responded for two months proves false.  The opposite parties stated in the reply that at the time of delivering the vehicle, the second opposite party thoroughly checked the vehicle in the presence of complainant and the complainant also stated as "very good".  The above version was not denied or rebutted by the complainant.  The complainant has deposed that "I deny the suggestion the usual practice on the part of OP2 is that after delivering the vehicle only, they used to get signature in the delivery check list under Ex.R1."   But, the complainant did not make any protest for the alleged defects in the car at the time of taking delivery.  From the above facts, this Forum could infer that the complainant was fully aware of the scratches and rust over the vehicle for which he availed a cash discount of Rs.65,000/- from the opposite parties and now approached this Forum that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice with malafide intention by suppressing material facts. 

12. Further, the complainant himself taken plea in the complaint that he is still keeping the said car as idle.    On perusal of Ex.R2, the job sheet, this Forum found that the complainant is using the vehicle by making regular service at Rajashree Automotive (P) Ltd., Erode.  Further, the complainant also did not whisper any complaint regarding the rust and scratches with them.  Hence, this Forum observed that the complainant is in possession and enjoyment of the vehicle.  The complainant purchased the vehicle with discount knowing fully well that there was scratches and rusting.  Further, there is no specific allegation against OP1 about the manufacturing defect in the car.  Hence, this Forum observed that there is no deficiency in service and unfair Trade Practice on the part of the second opposite party.    Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

13. POINT No.3:

            In view of the discussions made supra, this complaint lacks merits and hence, dismissed. 

Dated this the 6^th day of September 2017.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

   MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW1           14.08.2015                    K.G. Prakash

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  

RW1           28.11.2014                    Govindarajalu

COMPLAINANT'S SIDE DOCUMENTS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:   

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:  NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

   MEMBER