DOF.1.7.06

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan                 :       President

  Smt.K.P.Preethakumari              :       Member

  Smt.M.D.Jessy                           :       Member

Dated this,  the  22^nd day of   May   2010.

C.C.No.152/2006

.Mrs.Sheela Praven,

“Leela Villa’,

Thottada, Kannur 7.

(Rep.by Adv.R.Shyamkumar))                   Complainant

1.Manager, Koyenco Autos, Pvt.Ltd.

    Abna Complex,

     Pallikunnu,

     Kannur 4,

2. Managing Partner,

    Koyenco Motors Pvt.Ltd.

    Koyenco House,

    West Hill,

    Kozhikode 5.

   (Rep. by Adv.P.G.Anoop Narayanan for Ops 1& 2)

3. Managing Director,

    Tata Motors Ltd.,

    Pune 18.                               :                    Opposite Parties 

 (Rep.by M/s. Menon & Menon)

                                                                        O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.35, 000/- with interest @ 12% p.a till realization and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards the compensation to the complainant with cost.

         The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant was a user of Fiat Uno car Sales officer of 1^st opposite party persuaded the complainant and her husband to buy  an ‘Indigo  Car’ manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party and offered very good service. Finally she purchased the Indigo car from the 1^st opposite party. On 27.1.06 Mr.Savad, the agent brought a price list of the vehicles manufactured by 3^rd opposite party. The price of the Indigo LS car was Rs.4, 81,750/-. At that time the complainant specifically asked several time whether there will be any offer of reduction of the price during that time. But complainant was told that the offers will be there only during the next Onam season. Mr.Savad himself made al the arrangements for getting a car loan facility from the Bank and brought somebody from the loan section. 1^st opposite party was forcing the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle at that time itself and finally the complainant was compelled to take delivery on31.1.06. At the time of delivery opposite party informed the complainant that there was a hike on the value of the car and obtained Rs.3, 000/- more, than that of the price offered earlier. Thus the total value of the car is Rs.4, 84, 280/- complainant purchased the car paying the amount and taken delivery on31.1.06 and registered the vehicle as No.K.13P 7773. Though in sale certificate month and year of manufacturer is shown as January 2006, as per intimation of 1^st opposite party in the RC book the year of manufacturer has been shown as 2005. Soon after taking delivery of the vehicle  surprisingly the complainant noticed advertisement in several news papers that opposite parties have declared  offer of benefits of Rs.35,000/- up to Rs.50,000/- off for Indigo Cars, for the purchase between 6^th to 21^st February 2006. It is clearly shows that 2^nd opposite party have misrepresented the complainant that there will be any offer during that time. If complainant was not forced by 1^st opposite party. She would not have taken delivery at that time and definitely would have waited for an opportunity to get the offer. This amounts to misrepresentation and unfair trade practice. All the opposite parties are jointly liable for the loss sustained by the complainant. Complainant issued lawyer notice dt.28.2.06 to pay an amount of Rs.50, 000/- as compensation together with the refund of Rs.35, 000/- and to issue the certificate to the effect that the year of manufacturers is 2006. No opposite party though sent reply did hot respond positively. Hence this complaint.

         In pursuance of notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version together and 3^rd opposite party filed separately.

         The brief facts of the case of opposite parties 1 and 2 are as follows: It is not correct to say that the sales officer of 1^st opposite party Mr.Savad approached the complainant and her husband Sri. K. Praveenkuamr during 2^nd week of January 2006and persuaded them to purchase an Indigo Car. It is also incorrect and untrue to say that the complainant specifically enquired about the reduction of the price etc. Sales representatives of 1^st opposite party did not represent that the offer will be available only during ‘Onam” season. These opposite parties who are only dealers had nothing to do with the offers of reduction in price, which determined by 3^rd opposite party. The sales officer in-charge prepared a quotation at the rate prevailing as on the date of the delivery of the car. The opposite parties collected only the published price of the vehicle as fixed and notified by the 3^rd opposite party and these opposite parties are authorized to collect only the rate prevailing at the time of the delivery of the car. The amount of Rs.4, 84,280/- is the rate prevailing at the date of delivery. This opposite party has nothing to do with the scheme announced by the manufacturer. Dealers like these opposite parties will come to know about the offer when it is announced. These opposite parties never compelled the complainant to purchase the vehicle on 31.1.06. These opposite parties had nothing to do with the intake happened with the RTO and they have only helped to get it rectified. Notice was properly replied and there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties.

         3^rd opposite party filed version separately contending as follows: The complainant purchased the car accepting the terms and conditions of the purchase. It is a condition that the purchaser shall pay the price of the vehicle as on the date of delivery. Complainant had paid the price as on the date of delivery and taken delivery of the vehicle. This opposite party cannot be held liable if the registering authority did not register the vehicle without verifying the records. This opposite party    has at no point of time misrepresented or cheated the complainant nor committed any unfair trade practice or been negligent or done any illegal act which could be termed as deficiency in service. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

                        On the above pleadings, the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1, DW2 and Exts.A1 to A16 marked.

Issue No.1 to 3

            Admittedly complainant purchased an” Indigo Car’ manufactured by3rd opposite party and taken delivery of the vehicle on 31.1.06 paying the price of the vehicle Rs.4, 84,280/-. Complainant’s case is that the sales officer of 1stg opposite party Mr.Savad persistently persuaded the complainant offering good service. Complainant was forced to purchase the vehicle by the sale officer. On 27.1.06 when Mr.savad brought price list complainant specifically asked several time whether there will be any offer of reduction of price during that time. But she was told that the offers will be there only during the next Onam season. And Mr.Savad himself made arrangement for loan facility. Complainant was forced to take delivery on 31.1.06. Soon after the delivery the opposite parties declared an offer of benefit of Rs.35, 000/- to Rs.55, 000/-. If he was not compelled or forcedby1st opposite party she would not have taken delivery of vehicle at that time on 31.1.06. She would have waited for the opportunity to get the offer of Rs.35, 000/-.

            Hence the main question is whether the car purchased and taking delivery on the particular date was, a result of force or compulsion or else the misguidance by the opposite party intended to exclude the complainant from the benefits subsequently declared by 1^st opposite party. Ext.A5 shows that 1^st opposite party declared subsequent to the taking delivery of the car certain benefits as is alleged by complainant. The complainant adduced evidence through the proof affidavit filed by her husband, the power of attorney holder that “Bk-a-bT Xs¶ h­n-bp-SsS sUen-hdn FSp,¡p-hm³ ]cm-Xn-¡m-cnsb \nÀ_-Ôn-¡p-I-bp-T-A-h-km-\T ]cm-Xn-¡mcn 31.1.06-\p-X-s¶-  hm-l-\-¯n-sâ- sU-en-hdn FSp-¡p-hm³ \nÀ_ÔnXbm-hp-I-bpT sNbvXp  “.PW1 did not disclose what are the elements that forced the complainant to take delivery. PW1 says in proof affidavit that“ {]kvXpX  sales officer hfsc \Ã-tk-h-\-hp-T-a-äpT hmKv[m-\T sN¿p-I-bp-­mbn“. Even if it is true it cannot be considered as a force or compulsion.  In the usual course it can only be considered as canvassing. Complainant has not explained or adduced evidence to establish that this canvassing is actually amounts to unfair trade practice. Complainant has the case that opposite party received an amount of ³s.3000/- more than the amount earlier stated at the time of delivery. PW1 admitted in the cross examination that it was informed orally to pay the price existing at the time of delivery. PW1 deposed that “h­n delivery  FSp¯ ka-bs¯ hne-bmWv Xtc-­Xv F¶p-hm-¡m ]d-ªn-cp¶p “.  If it is so, opposite party is entitled to receive the then existing price at the time of delivery. Complainant has no case that opposite party received Rs.3000/- more that of the existing price at the time of delivery.  So there is no substance in the allegation that opposite party has received Rs.3000/- excess price on the basis of increase in price.

            Moreover, complainant could   succeed in elucidating anything favorable from the elaborate cross examination of DWs 1 and 2. Complainant could not even bring out what are the acts deeds and words that amount to compelling force that lead the complainant to purchase the vehicle on 31.1.06. Complainant alleged that opposite party told her that there will be offers of benefit only after the Onam. But there is no reliable evidence either oral or documentary to prove these allegations. Nothing is brought out in cross examination also.

            In view of the forgoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this complaint. The complainant is miserably failed to prove her case and is not entitled to get any relief.   Hence the issues 1 to 3 are found against the Complainant.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

  Sd/-            Sd/-                                 Sd/-

 President     Member                                 Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1Copy of the price list of the Ops vehicle.

A2.Copy of the Sale Certificate issued by OP

A3.Copy of payment details

A4.Copyof certificate of registration

A5.Copyof tax receipt

A6.Copyof insurance certificate

A7.Copy of letter of OP

A8.Copy of letter issued by Transport Commissioner

A9.Copy of lawyer notice

A10.copy of letter of OP3 dt.8.3.06

A11. Reply notice dt.11.3.06

A12 & 13.Letter dt.14.3.06 and 18.5.06 of OP3.

A14 & 15.Mathrubhumidailydt.13.2.06 & 17.2.06

A16. Power of Attorney

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.PraveenKumar

Witness examined for the opposite parties

DW1.Ambujakshan.K

DW2.Biju Nair

                                                      /forwarded by order/

Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur