IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31st day of January, 2018
Filed on 22.01.2016
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No. 26/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Aneesh.K Sri. Haris Bin Sharaf
S/o Karthikeyan H.Promise, SS Hundai
Gurusagaram, Punnapara Authorized Hyundai Dealer
Alappuzha Corporate Office
(Adv.Sheeba.S) Mavelikkara, Alappuzha
Pin. 690 101
(Adv. Jeevan Joy)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant purchased a 2010 model Swift VDI Diesel car from the opposite party on 1/10/15 for Rs. 4,30,000/-. On the 1st day itself some problems about the gear of the vehicle was noted and he entrusted the vehicle with the opposite party for rectifying the defect. On 2/10/15 the opposite party returned the vehicle after rectifying the defects. On the way to home it again became defective and he again came to the opposite parties office and since it is closed, the complainant approached the Maruti Workshop. They inspected the vehicle and find that engine, gear box became defective. He again entrusted the vehicle to the opposite party rectified the gearbox defect and returned the vehicle saying that they rectified all the defects. The vehicle has so many defects and he cannot use the vehicle from the day of purchase and that caused much inconvenience and hard ships. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint is filed.
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant who runs rent a car business at Alappuzha approached the Opposite party for purchasing the above said Hyundai car. He came with his son, checked up the car, started it and was fully satisfied with its condition. That is a 2010 model car which was purchased by the opposite party on 17-09-2014 from the 1st owner for a price of Rs. 4,30,000/-. It was found in very good condition and it was placed for sale, after having necessary repairs. The complainant booked the vehicle and made a token advance of Rs. 5000/- as and when he saw the vehicle and after two weeks on 17-09-2015 paid Rs. 25,000/- also as advance payment. Since he was so impressed with the condition of the vehicle, finally on 30-09-15 paid Rs. 4,00,000/- and took over the car from the opposite party along with all the necessary documents. The complainant came with the car on the next day and complained about the gear. The opposite party showed it in the Maruti workshop and found some problem regarding the clutch and the clutch was totally replaced spending Rs. 9000/- and the car was handed over to the complainant who was fully satisfied. As per the information, got from reliable sources, the petitioner used the car for rent-a-car business and the damages described in the petition might have been caused during that period. The opposite party is not responsible for any damages regarding the sold vehicle which was a pre-owned one, and the petitioner has no right to sue against opposite party and get any reliefs from the opposite party regarding the vehicle which the petitioner purchased without any warranty.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1 documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A10. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B4.
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant has purchased 2010 model Swift VDI Diesel car bearing Registration No. Kl 34 A 3477 from the opposite party on 1/10/15 for Rs. 4,30,000/- . The Allegation of the complainant is that the vehicle that he purchased has so many defects and it is to be rectified by the opposite party According to the opposite party complainant purchased the vehicle fully satisfied with its condition. It is also admitted by the opposite party that when the complainant made complaint about the gear he repaired it and there after handed over to the complainant. But according to the complainant the vehicle has gear box, engine and steering box complaint.
On going through the facts of the case we came to see that the complainant purchased the vehicle knowing that it was the 2010 model vehicle. Having purchased the old vehicle after availing the discount in the value of the vehicle he cannot raise any grievance subsequently. The vehicle purchased on “As is where is basis” no warranty also offered by the opposite party. Hence we did not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of January, 2018. Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Aneesh.K(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Pre owned car booking form
Ext.A2 - Booking Receipt
Ext.A3 - RC Book
Ext.A4 - Bill
Ext.A5 - Vehicle History
Ext.A6 - Copy of Complaint
Ext.A7 - Retail invoice dtd. 15/8/2010
Ext.A8 - Retail Invoice (Herculies Automobiles)
Ext.A9 - Retail invoice dtd.23/01/2016
Ext.A10 - Retail Invoice dtd. 31/10/2015
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Haris Bin Sharaf (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Insurance certificate
Ext.B2 - Sales Voucher
Ext.B3 - Tax Invoice
Ext.B4. - Retail Invoice dtd. 15/10/2015.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- br/-
Compared by:-