Date of filing : 23-01-2006 Date of order : 01-04-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.No.09/2006 Dated this, the 1st day of April 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Thomas.A.C, S/o.Chacko, Achukandathil House, Kolichal, Panathady Village, Hosdurg Taluk. } Complainant ( Adv.K.M. Sreedharan, Kanhangad) M/s.Har Cars, Kannur, Rep.by its Manager, Har Avenue, Kannothumchal, } Opposite party Chowa, Kannur 670006. ( Adv.M. Preman, Kannur) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The case of the complainant in short is that instead of his specific demand for a Model 2005 Maruti Versa Car, the opposite party delivered him a 2004 model car, misrepresenting that the car delivered was a 2005 model. Alleging unfair trade practice, the instant complaint is filed against opposite parties. 2. According to opposite party the booking made by the complainant was for a 2005 model is not correct. The complainant booked the vehicle on 16-03-05 and it is a common knowledge that the model for that year will not be available during the prelude stage of a year and in fact the complainant had booked for the car in the available stock and it was specifically informed to the complainant. The opposite party has not represented that the vehicle is of 2005 and it was not necessitated as it is the common practice that in the vehicle field, only the stock available at the time of delivery would be sold. Normally the model for a particular year will be released only after April being the beginning of the financial year. Hence there is no unfair trade practice on their part. 3. Complainant filed affidavit and Exts. A1 to A4 marked. For opposite party K.N. Anil Kumar the sales officer filed counter affidavit and Exts B1 to B3 marked. Both sides heard. 4. The specific case of the complainant Thomas is that he was very particular about the model of the car at the time of booking made on 16-03-05. Believing the representation of the opposite party that the vehicle is a model of 2005 he took delivery of the vehicle. But on verification of registration certificate it was found that the vehicle is of 2004 model. According to complainant when he made an advance booking for the vehicle in March 2005 his legitimate expectation was that the vehicle delivered would be of 2005 model. He was in possession of another car at that time and if the opposite party had disclosed the fact that the vehicle is of 2004 he would not have purchased the car and he was ready to wait for a 2005 model car. 5. Ext.A1 is delivery note dtd.18-03-05 issued by opposite party to complainant. It is pertinent to note that in the delivery note the year of manufacture (model) is nowhere noted. So on perusing Ext.A1 delivery note no one can identify the model of the vehicle. 6. Ext.B2 produced by the opposite party is a copy of original invoice issued by the Maruti Udyog Limited, the manufacturer of the vehicle to opposite party with respect of the sale of the vehicle to opposite party. In Ext.B1 also the year of manufacture (model) is no where mentioned. It is only denotes the date of sale of vehicle to the opposite party. But in Ext.B2 the sale certificate issued by opposite party the Regional Transport Officer, Kasaragod the month & year of manufacture is noted as February 2005. The specific plea of the opposite party is that the model of that year is not available during the prelude stage of a year. If so how and on what basis the opposite party noted the model of vehicle as February 2005 is quite unknown especially when the opposite party is well aware about the fact that in the vehicle field normally the model for a particular year will be released only after April being the beginning of the financial year. 7. Having fully knowing the above aspect the opposite party willfully noted the month and year of manufacture of the vehicle as February 2005. So it is only for the purpose of misrepresenting the complainant and persuading him to purchase the vehicle. It amounts to unfair trade practice as envisaged U/s 2(1){r} (1)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. 8. It is a common fact that in the used vehicles market the price of the vehicle depends upon the model of the vehicle. Hence a 2004 model vehicle will not get the price of a 2005 model vehicle. If the complainant intends to sell his vehicle, he would be a looser due to the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party. The prayer of the complainant is for an order to replace the vehicle with a 2005 model vehicle. That is not possible in this year 2009. Hence it is reasonable to award compensation to the complainant for the loss, hardships and mental agony suffered by him. Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant with a cost of Rs.3000/-. Time for payment is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which opposite party shall pay interest @ 9% per annum for the said amount of Rs.40000/- from the date of complaint till payment. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Delivery Note. A2. Invoice. A3. 15-10-05 Copy of Lawyer notice. A4.24-12-05 reply noice. B1. Photocopy of Invoice. B2. Photocopy of sale certificate B3. Photocopy of invoice Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER Pj/ /Forwarded by Order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
