Date of filing:10.6.2013
Date of Disposal:21.4.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF APRIL, 2014.
C.C.No.109 OF 2013.
Between :
Sri Mudumala Divya Manohar, S/o M.John Samson, 29 years, Christian, Business, R/o D.No.17-15-32, Nadar Street, Pappula Mill Centre, Baptist Palem, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Jasper Industries Pvt., Limited, D.No.40-1-134, Sumanth Complex, P.Box No.757, Near Benz Circle, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Rep., by its Authorized Person, Vijayawada – 10.
2. Tata Motors Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homy Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
3. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Techno Campus, Building A, 2nd Floor, Off Pokhran Road 2, Thane West 400 601
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 7.4.2014 in the presence of Sri D.Srihari, Counsel for complainant and Sri B.V.S.R.Prasad, Counsel for opposite party No.1 and complaint against opposite parties 2 and 3 is not pressed and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant purchased Tata Ace HT vehicle for his livelihood on 8.2.2013 for a sum of Rs.3,47,023/- from the 1st opposite party. For the purchase of the said vehicle the complainant availed financial assistance of Rs.3,47,023/- which to be paid in 47 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.10,700/-. After due process the complainant got registered the vehicle. On receipt of the registration certificate the complainant observed that the 1st opposite party delivered the vehicle manufactured in the year 2012 instead of 2013 since the complainant purchased the vehicle on 8.2.2013. Immediately the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and asked about the same. They replied arrogantly. While so the complainant received a telephone call from the 1st opposite party asked the complainant to pay the first EMI and they will resolve the matter in three days as there is difference of Rs.70,000/- which is to be paid to the complainant. Agreed for the same the complainant paid the first EMI. But the 1st opposite party failed to settle the issue as assured by them. The manufacturing year of vehicle changes the value of the vehicle which results in depreciation percentage. As far as the same the complainant sustained loss of Rs.86,072/-, interest thereon and financial charges. The acts of the 1st opposite party is illegal and nothing but deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to pay the difference of rs.1,22,630/- to the complainant, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay costs.
2. The complainant filed this complaint against opposite parties 1 to 3. Later he not pressed the complaint against opposite parties 2 and 3.
3. The version of the 1st opposite party is in brief:
The 1st opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that at the time of purchasing the vehicle of the complainant this opposite party furnished a report submitting detailed information about the credentials of the vehicle to the complainant regarding the details of the complainant his address and details of the vehicle. The complainant thoroughly verified each and every part of the vehicle in detail with regard to the information as given by this opposite party and verified every information and finally complaint was satisfied to the information and signed on the said report and has taken delivery of the vehicle from the 1st opposite party. The complainant even after filing the complaint has undergone service to the said vehicle on various dates 30.3.2013, 17.4.2013, 25.5.2013 and lastly on 18.10.2013 and the 1st opposite party has rendered his best service to the complainant’s vehicle. Every time the complainant used to get service to his vehicle and satisfied with the services of the 1st opposite party and has taken delivery of the vehicle and running the vehicle smoothly and happily. Without having any reason the complainant filed this complaint to degrade the reputation of the 1st opposite party in the society. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party towards the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6. On behalf of the 1st opposite party Sri Y.Jagadeesh Naidu, Assistant General Manager gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2.
5. Heard and perused.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party
towards the complainant in selling the vehicle of 2012 making instead of 2013
to the complainant?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any reliefs?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
7. On hearing the both parties and on perusing the material the complainant purchased Tata Ace HT vehicle from the 1st opposite party on 8.2.2013 for a sum of Rs.3,47,023/- under Ex.A.2 retail invoice dated 8.2.2013 and he got the registration under Ex.A.1 dated 15.2.2013 with the Government of Andhra Pradesh Transport Department. It also issued fitness certificate dated 16.2.2013. The complainant says that on seeking the registration certificate he came to know that which he purchased the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2012. He gave a complaint to the opposite party through E-mails to the Customer Care I.D. under Ex.A.3 on 16.4.2013 stating that the vehicle provided to him was manufactured in the year of 2012 and was given in the year 2013 which he was earlier not aware of it. The opposite party sent reply E-mail on 16.4.2013 stating that they received the request regarding vehicle issue and noted the same and shall revert to him shortly. Again the complainant sent E-mail on 23.4.2013 the same message and request the opposite party let him know any alternate number if any to contact the 1st opposite party. The opposite party gave reply E-mail on 23.4.2013 stating that they request him to speak their state Head-commercial vehicle Mr.N.S.V.Sagar on 9246621999 and sent the same message about the vehicle. The opposite party sent E-mail on 24.4.2013 to the complainant to contact the same. The complainant says that one Perikela Jeevaratnam his well known person purchased a vehicle Tata Ace HT from the 1st opposite party on 26.2.2013 for the same value of Rs.3,47,023/- under Ex.A.4 and it was registered on 7.3.2013 under Ex.A.5 and it was mentioned in it month and year of manufacture as 01/2013. Then the complainant applied to the RTA Authorities under Right to Information Act on 3.1.2014 to give information regarding numbers of Tata Ace Vehicles registered in the month of February, 2013. The RTA Authorities gave the information under Ex.A.6 mentioning the year of manufacturing and number of vehicles stating that in the year 2013 January 48,and February, 3 vehicles were registered. The complainant says that the manufacturing year of vehicle changes the value of the vehicle which results in depreciation percentage. As per the same he sustained loss of Rs.86,750/- interest there on and financial charges.
7. The opposite party says that after all verification of the vehicle and after satisfaction the complainant took delivery of the vehicle. The fact shows under Ex.B.1 and he got first free service on 25.5.2013 and second free service on 18.10.2013 and he also paid Rs.1,246/- on 25.5.2013 and got receipt under Ex.B.2.
8. On verifying the documents and on hearing the both parties we, the Forum came to conclusion that it is the duty of the dealer to mention the date, month and year of manufacturing of the vehicle in retail invoice of the vehicle and it is the duty of the dealer to explain the customer about the same and has to deliver the vehicle what the purchaser asked. No purchaser wants to purchase previous year manufacturing vehicle. We noticed Ex.B.1 that it was got from the RTA Authorities. The original has to be with the dealer. The complainant objected that he did not put tick mark in original. The dealer failed to explain the fact about year of manufacturing to the complainant. Hence it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party towards the complainant. The complainant did not produce any documentary evidence as to the price variation in month and year of manufacturing between 2012 to 2013. The complaint has to be compensated by the 1st opposite party for his deficiency in service.
POINT No.3;-
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees only) towards compensation and to pay Rs.1,000/- (one thousand rupees only) as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance within one month. Rest of the claim of the complaint are rejected.
Dictated to the Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 21st day of April, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite party:-
P.W.1 M.Divya Manohar D.W.1 Y.Jagadesh Naidu,
Complainant Assistant General Manager
(by affidavit) of the opposite party
(by affidavit)
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 15.02.2013 Photocopy of Certificate of Registration along with
photocopy of certificate of fitness
Ex.A.2 08.02.2013 Photocopy of Retail Invoice issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A.3 16.04.2013 Photocopy of E-mail letter.
Ex.A.4 07.03.2013 Photocopy of Certificate of Registration.
Ex.A.5 26.02.2013 Photocopy of Retail Invoice issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.a.6 03.01.2014 Letter from the Public Information Officer & RTO, RTA,
Vijayawada to the counsel for complainant.
For the opposite party:-
Ex.B.1 . . Copy of owner details.
Ex.B.2 . . Copy of Service history.
PRESIDENT
