BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 27/09/2008

Date of Order : 20/07/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 351/2008

Between

 

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The complainant's case is as follows :

On 28-03-2007, the complainant purchased a 'Mitsubishi Pajero CRZ' model vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 18,81,000/- which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. At the time of purchase, the 2^nd opposite party assured that the year of manufacturing of the vehicle is 2007. But the year of manufacture in the registration certificate is 2006 instead of 2007. Due to the change of year of model in the registration certificate the price of the vehicle will be diminished by Rs. 7 lakhs at the time of resale. Though at the outset, the 2^nd opposite party agreed to replace the vehicle and to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs, later they went back on their word. So the complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 06-05-2008, but there was no response on the part of the 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st opposite party evaded to accept the notice. The complainant had to suffer inconveniences and mental agony due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the vehicle in question with a new vehicle and to pay a total compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs.

2. Version of the 1^st opposite party :

The vehicle sold to the complainant had been manufactured in the year 2007 itself. The manufacturing year mentioned in the registration certificate being 2006 instead of 2007 is an error being committed by the Regional Transport Authority Office for which the opposite parties cannot be held responsible. The allegations levelled by the complainant are totally baseless. There is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in this case. The 1^st opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint hence.

3. Defense of the 2^nd opposite party :

The subject matter of the complaint is a mistake committed by the Registering Authority, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The year of manufacture of the vehicle is 2007. The year of manufacture was noted in the RC book of the vehicle by the Registering Authority on 2006 instead of 2007 for reasons not attributable to the 2^nd opposite party. The wrong entry in the RC book is curable and the same would not diminish the value of the vehicle. On receipt of the lawyer notice the 2^nd opposite party 'tried to convince the complainant that the mistake on the RC book can be corrected by submitting an application to the Registering Authority. In stead of that, the complainant insisted on replacement of the vehicle. The manufacturer has submitted the details of the cut off chassis numbers to the Registering Authority in time. The complaint is devoid of any merit so liable to be dismissed.

4. The witness for the complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the complainant. The witness for the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts B1 and B2 were marked on their side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 2^nd opposite party. Exts. X1 to X3 also were marked. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the vehicle under dispute?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the complainant?

6. Point No. i. :- The complainant does not have a case that the vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect. So we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not at all entitled to get replacement of the car in question. Held so.

7. Point No. ii. :- The parties are in consensus on the following issues :

1. The complainant purchased a motor car from the 2^nd opposite party on 28-03-2007 at a price of Rs. 18,81,000/- which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.

2. The month and year of manufacture of the vehicle as per Ext. A2 sale certificate is March 2007.

3. The year of manufacturer of the vehicle as per the registration certificate is 2006.

    

8. PW1 is the then Motor Vehicle Inspector, who registered the vehicle and issued Ext. A1 registration certificate. According to PW1, he has not received any details from the manufacturer showing the cut off chassis number of the vehicle in question. He further stated that since he has not received the details of cut off chassis number from the manufacturer he registered the vehicle considering it as 2006 make.

9. The 1^st opposite party has produced Ext. B1 details of location of chassis number and code for the month and year of manufacture as per Rule 122 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Ext. B2 goes to show that it pertains to “PAJERO 2800 GLX BSIII and GL BSIII” model not the model as of the complainant. Both the opposite parties maintain that the mistake crept in the RC book due to the mistake on the part of the Registering Authority. But both the opposite parties failed to produce necessary documents showing the cut off chassis number of the vehicle under dispute in this Forum. No convincing reason is before us to substantiate the contentions of the opposite parties, even for reasons before us which could have been.

10. Neither is there on record anything to controvert the averments of the complainant. In the above circumstances, we are only to hold that the vehicle under dispute was manufactured in the year 2006 as per the Registration certificate where as shown as 2007 in the sale certificate. The one year difference in manufacturing year of the vehicle as averred by the complainant considerably affects the price of the same. The complainant has not produced any evidence to the contrary or even to substantiate his contention. The matter having been discussed above and having been untrammeled, we are not accept the version of the complainant as to the prayer of a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs which by ordinary standards would amount to a tall claim while probably neither the opposite parties would have conceived nor this Forum could allow. For reasons “melody has been abated” in the present case quoting Lord Macaulay. However, here the agony is mental which essentially calls for a compensation in terms. We fix it at Rs. One lakh.

11. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant for the reasons stated above.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 20^th day of July 2011.