By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

            The complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

1.         The complainant bought vehicle number KL 54 G 9696 Nissan Sunny car on 16/02/2016 from the first opposite party, who is the dealer of the second opposite party. The price of the vehicle was Rs.11,07,814/-.  The complainant was in need of 2015 model vehicle and he was made believe the vehicle was of 2015 model. The vehicle was registered through first opposite party and as per the documents the model of the vehicle was stated as 2015 and in the insurance policy also the make year was shown as 2015.  During the year 2019 there was a call from the first opposite party and demanded to correct the model of the vehicle as 2014 instead of 2015. The complainant came to know about the fact the vehicle is 2014 model only on that occasion. The act of the opposite parties’ amounts cheating of a consumer. The complainant bought the vehicle under the believe the vehicle is 2015 model. If the complainant were aware the fact the vehicle was of 2014, he ought not have bought the vehicle, he was never in need of 2014 model vehicle and there was available 2015 model vehicles for the same cost.  The act of the opposite parties amounts deficiency in service. Complainant alleges 2014 model vehicle has got depreciation of re- sale value. He is also alleging that if anything is happened to the vehicle the insurance also will stand denied.   Complainant apprehends legal issues also. There was number of vehicles available in the market for a reduced sale value.   The complainant caused notice of the opposite parties stating the fact but despite of receipt of notice there was no reply from the part of opposite parties. Hence, complainant approached this commission for the redressal of grievance.  The complainant prays for the refund of the vehicle value of Rs.11,07,814/- and also compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with cost of 50,000/- rupees.

2.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to   the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version in detail.

3.         The first opposite party contended that the complaint is devoid of merit and not legally maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The opposite party contended that complaint is time barred one and not having any cause of action against the first opposite party.  He contended that he is the dealer appointed by the manufacturer of the vehicle.  The date of manufacturer, month, price, warranty, quality, and such things are under the control of the manufacturer. The duty of the dealer is limited to sale and service as prescribed by the manufacturer and so the first opposite party is not a necessary party and the complaint be dismissed with cost of the first opposite party.  The opposite party admitted that the complainant   purchased a Nissan Sunny car after satisfying its quality after do verification and the car was delivered to the complainant after pre-delivery inspection.  Whenever the vehicle was produced for service due service was given with all possible assistance.  The complainant paid the value of the vehicle after bargaining and he registered the same with the help of agents appointed by complainant.  The insurance was taken by the complainant and the first opposite party had no role in the alleged transaction. The vehicle was manufactured by the manufacturer and the sale letter was issued as per the details provided by the manufacturer.  The details of manufacturer, its date etc. are provided by the manufacturer. The first opposite party have no any access to the documents kept by the manufacturer and they are acting as per the instructions of the manufacturer.  The manufacturer appointed the dealer to sell the car as per the conditions imposed by them. The price also fixed by the manufacturer time to time and offers are also fixed by manufacture. The opposite party is bound to sell the vehicle as per the direction of the second opposite party once the vehicle is transferred to the dealer the manufacturer will not take back the vehicle, it is the duty of the dealer to sell the same.  The year back vehicles will not be taken back by the manufacturer. So, such vehicle is termed as ghost stock and the same will be sold with discounts. The dealer margin will be offered such sale and thereby the price paid to the company recoverable. The averment that the vehicle purchased by the complainant is of 2014 model, the opposite party assured that the vehicle of 2015 model, there was misrepresentation, there was no necessity to purchase the 2014 model with that price, the vehicle is put to sale 2014 model will get lesser price, the registration authorities will take action against the complaint, the complainant was put the heavy loss and compensation etc. are baseless and so denied by the opposite party. The first opposite party submitted that vehicle is manufactured in the year 2014 and the opposite party sold the vehicle of 2015 model is not correct and so denied. The contention that the first opposite party informed the complainant the year of manufacture is 2014 is correct and it was sold from ghost stock.

4.         The year back vehicles are sold at a lesser price and the persons will buy the same after making bargains.  Usually, the buyers can save Rs.50,000/- to 70,000/- for these vehicles. The year back vehicle sold by the opposite party without any profit but to save the loss.   The opposite party submitted that they have not conveyed any information that the vehicle is of 2015 model and it is a baseless contention. The opposite party received correct details from the manufacturer and it is entered in the records.  The correct bill, sale letter and other records were given to the complainant and he registered the vehicle. The opposite party contended that the complainant might have teamed with agents and might have manipulated the records. According to first opposite party the complainant can easily correct the records and registered the vehicle with different model number. The vehicle delivered to the complaint was not having any inherent defects and it is performing satisfactorily.  The complainant have no case regarding the quality of the vehicle.  The allegation of the complainant that he suffered a loss of 5,00,000/- rupees is not correct. The manufacturer, second opposite party will send cars to the first opposite party as per the agreed conditions between the first and second opposite parties. Usually there will be all type of vehicle with the opposite parties i.e., new model, old model and year back ghost stocks etc.   The year back vehicles will be sold with discount and the complainant opted for the same for saving money.  The opposite party granted dealer margin of Rs.64,012/-, etc. fittings worth Rs.2,505/-. He was also granted corporate discount of Rs.5,000/-. In total 71,517/- rupees were granted as discount on the vehicle. The present model were also available but the price will be high and no discount will be given for such vehicles with prevailing price of delivery. The complainant saved Rs.10,000/- on the date of purchase and after one year all vehicles will be having more less same value. Hence some persons will wait for such vehicle’s to get more benefit. At present the complainant is trying to get more profit suppressing the actual fact with ulterior motive.

5.         The opposite party contended that the date of sale of the car seen from the invoice number VSL MLP 278 dated 30/01/2016 and the same is 2014 model.  The contention of the complainant that the manufacturing year will be reflected in re-sale is incorrect. The vehicle involved in this complaint were maintained properly by the opposite parties and there was no any deterioration of quality as alleged. The complainant alleging baseless allegations with ulterior motive and opted for more profit and also it was due to mis guidance by vehicle brokers.  According to opposite party only the manufacturer can say on which month the car manufactured and the available documents shows that the vehicle is of 2014 March model. The act done by the complainant and agents of transport office is not the fault of opposite parties. Once the registration is complete the details will be given and the same will be reflected in the reports of opposite party. The second opposite party allowed warranty for 24 months from 30/01/2018 or 18,000 kilometer whichever comes first.

6.         The opposite party submit that the complainant was given a quality vehicle with lesser price and he was using the vehicle more than 3 years. The complainant booked vehicle on 04/01/2016 and the post booking record shows that he verified the model, variant and color and took delivery of the vehicle on 30/01/2016. Hence prayer of the opposite parity is that the complainant approached this Commission not with clean hands and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

7.         The second opposite party filed version denying the allegations contained in the complaint. The second opposite party submitted that vehicles manufactured by them passes through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production starts. The vehicle manufactured by the second opposite party thoroughly inspected for control system quality check and test drive before passing through factory works for dispatch to the authorized   dealers who are appointed on a “principal to principal” basis for sale of cars and vehicles.  

8.         The second opposite party also contended that the complaint is not maintainable either on merits or asper law and so liable to be dismissed. The complaint is seen filed by the complainant on mere conjectures and surmise. The contention of the complainant is wholly miss conceived, vexatious, misleading, misrepresented, unsustainable, falls and frivolous and are nothing but a fragrant abuse of the process of law.  There is no role in respect of sale of vehicle on the part of the second opposite party and there is no case is made out against the second opposite party under Consumer Protection Ac1986. The contention of second opposite party is that they are unnecessary and unwanted party who is dragged in to the speculative litigation.  

9.         The second opposite party submitted that the complainant purchased LMV motor car 1500 with SEDAN Body, classification Nissan sunny with chasis number MDHB DAMI 7EA301587 & ENGINGE NO,.K9KE424E044618,blade silver color  car bearing registration  No. KL 54 G 9696 from the premises of first opposite party. The first opposite parry is responsible for the sale and services of the said vehicle purchased by the complainant as per the dealer shop agreement entered between the second opposite party and the first opposite party.  It is also submitted that second opposite party entered in to an agreement to sell his vehicles with his authorized dealers and his authorized dealers  are entrusted with  the sale of cars and the vehicles after the said vehicle  is delivered to the authorized dealer from the manufacturing  plant  as per the dealership agreement.  

10.       The second opposite party alleges that the complainant vaguely alleging that the manufacturing year of vehicle is of 2014 without any substantial evidence. The registration certificate and the insurance certificate of the vehicle the manufacturing year of the vehicle is clearly shown as 2015 and the month of the manufacturing year as march 2015. The opposite party submit that the communications are made only between the complainant and the opposite party No.1 and so the second opposite party has been wrongly made as party to the proceedings and so the opposite party is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the complaint. There is no specific allegation of deficiency as defined under the consumer protection act is levelled against the opposite party.  The contention of complainant is only against first opposite party alleging mis representation or breach of trust done by the first opposite party during the course of sale of the vehicle. The opposite party also contended that the manufacturer of the vehicle is not liable for acts done by the dealer / service Centre, as the dealer / service center is not the agent of manufacturer. In this complaint the allegation against unfair trade practice on the part of the second opposite party is not at all sustainable and the opposite party cannot be held liable for the same in any manner.

11.       The claim of the complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law and complaint is liable to be dismissed forth with. The second opposite part alleges the complainant filed this complainant in order to cause wrong full gain to himself and to cause wrongful loss to the second opposite party is evident from the various allegations put for by the complainant in the complaint.

12        The opposite party submit that they cannot be held liable vicariously for acts, commissions and omissions if any which have been claimed to have occurred on the part of its dealership. The second opposite party have got good repute with his customers and has an international presence and so any adverse order without proper evidence will cause great injury to the reputation and goodwill. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint with cost.

13        The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is copy of R C of vehicle KL 54 G 9696 Nissan sunny light motor car. Ext. A2 is policy certificate issued by reliance general insurance with certificate cum policy number 991091823110000813. Ext. A3 is copy of lawyer notice issued to PVM automotive India private limited with acknowledgement and postal receipt   dated 13/06/2019 Ext. A4 is a lawyer notice issued to Nissan motors India private limited. Ext. A5 is insurance cover note number 1098939 issued by the oriental insurance company limited. Ext. A6 is copy of letter issued by second opposite party to the complainant. Opposite party filed documents and they are marked as Ext. B1and B2. Ext. B1 is copy of Nissan dealer agreement executed in the year 2014. Ext. B2 is copy of certificate cum policy number 901091823110000813.

14.       The complainant and opposite parties heard in detail, perused affidavits and documents. The following points arise for the consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost?   

15.       Point No.1 &2

            The grievance of the complainant is that the complainant bought 2015 model motor car and it was registered as 2015 in the registration certificate and also stated in the insurance certificate. The first opposite party made to believe the complainant that the vehicle is 2015 model and on that belief, he bought the vehicle. But the vehicle was of 2014 model. If the vehicle was actually 2014 model the complainant would not have purchased it. The act of opposite parties amounts unfair trade practice and so the prayer is to refund the cost of the vehicle with compensation of 5,00,000/- rupees along with cost of 50,000 rupees. The complainant produced Ext. A1 and A2 which shows the year of manufacture as 2015. So, it stands proved the vehicle belongs to the complainant registered as 2015 model. Now the question is who is responsible for entering the manufacturing year as 2015 in the records. The first opposite party argued that the vehicle was taken delivery from the showroom and the complainant received the vehicle with temporary registration report form 20, form 21 etc. and the complainant registered the vehicle at his own method in 2016 march. According to first opposite party it can fetch a recent number and no will recognize the model and it was done wisely by the complainant. First opposite party submitted that the complainant was able to register the vehicle with 2015 model and the complainant has not summoned records from RTO leading to the registration of the vehicle. The first opposite party also submitted that they tried to get these records and it was intimated that the records are not available with the Joint R TO Ponnani which are supposed to be kept by them till the vehicle is dismantled.  According to first opposite party the registration process during the year 2016 was a manual process. The officials will inspect the vehicle and check all the records. The officials of registration department will prepare the registration certificate and will issue the same. It is also mentioned that the presence of complainant is necessary for permanent registration or his authorized persons should attend the registration process. The correct bill, sale letter and other records are issued to the complainant and accordingly complainant registered the vehicle. The first opposite party alleges the complainant might have teamed with agents and might have manipulated the records.

16        It is easy for the complainant to correct records and register the vehicle with different model number. The first opposite party also contended that they granted DLR Margin of Rs.64,012, fitting having value of 2,505/- corporate discount of Rs. 5,000/- and thus the complainant saved   Rs.71,517/-.   The first opposite party submitted the above facts to establish the complainant was allowed reduction of value of the vehicle considering the model of the vehicle. The first opposite party submitted that they had old stock vehicle and which is described as “ghost vehicles” and they are selling at reduction rate. The complainant received the vehicle realizing the model of vehicle and enjoying the financial benefit of the same.

17.       It can be seen that reduction sale of motor vehicles are not an exceptional business dealing. Dealers of the vehicles offering reduction sale to promote the business. But the beneficiaries should be well informed of the reasons for the reduction sale. In this complaint on verification of entire documents it cannot be find out the reduction was provided because of the model as claimed by the first opposite party. So, it is not proper to hold reduction was offered to the complainant on the ground of model of the vehicle alone. The verification of documents it can be seen that the first opposite party collected the insurance amount from the complainant. So, it reveals that the vehicle was insured through the first opposite party which is evident from Ext. A2, A5, and B4. Ext. A2 and B5 bears endorsement of first opposite party EVM automotive India Pvt. Limited. Ext. B5 is invoice issued by first opposite party which shows that insurance amount also was collected by the first opposite party. On verification of the document the complainant took delivery of the vehicle only after temporary registration and obtaining insurance policy i.e., after 16/02/2016. The complainant was not taken delivery of the vehicle as alleged by the first opposite party on 30/01/2016. It can be perused that the first opposite party has taken steps to register the vehicle and to avail insurance coverage. So the contention of the first opposite party that the complainant manipulated the documents teaming with agents is worthless. It is not expected to do by a purchaser of a vehicle register a vehicle in a different model that too by an educated man like complainant. Hence we do not find any merit in the contention of the first opposite party and find that complainant was delivered a vehicle misrepresenting the manufacturing year of vehicle.

18.       The contention of the second opposite party is that when the vehicle was handed over to deliver, there is no responsibility on the vehicle except as per the warranty condition. The first opposite party had contended that they have no responsibility regarding the date of manufacture. But the issue in this complaint is that not the   records issued by the second opposite party, but the records submitted before the registering authority through the first opposite party. It is already noted that the vehicle was insured through first opposite party as evident from document. the responsibility for entering manufacturing year rest on the first opposite party. There is no specific allegation against the second opposite party that the second opposite party issued documents of vehicle made of 2014 as made of 2015. Therefore, the commission is of the view the act of the first opposite party resulted in entering manufacturing year in the registration certificate as 2015 against 2014. It is also to be noted that the vehicle was delivered on 2016 February 16^th and admittedly it was booked on 04/01/2016.     A purchaser of the vehicle is not expected to approach a dealer demanding one year old model new vehicle without sufficient reason. In this complaint the reduction provided to the complainant cannot be treated on account of old model of the vehicle. Hence the Commission finds that the first opposite party is responsible for the registration of vehicle with wrong year of manufacture.

19.       The complainant alleges huge loss on account of the difference in model number in the registration certificate, he apprehended adverse legal consequences also. we find that there is merit in the contention of the complainant regarding adverse legal consequences. But at the same time there cannot be any huge amount of financial loss on account of the wrong entry of model year in the registration certificate. It is pertinent to note that there is no allegation against the vehicle regarding the working condition. So, the only loss which the complainant might have caused is the depreciation of sale value of the vehicle. The commission considering the depreciation of re-sale value of the vehicle due to difference in the model year and there by caused mental agony and inconveniences, we allow one lakh rupees as compensation.  We also allow Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

20.       In the light of above fact and circumstances we allow the complaint as follows: -

1.  the first opposite parry tis directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant  on account of unfair trade practice and thereby caused inconvenience and hardships  and also financial loss to the complainant
2. The first opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The first opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy f this order, failing which the entire above amount shall bear 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.

 Dated this 31^st  day of March, 2022.

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A6

Ext.A1: Copy of R C of vehicle KL 54 G 9696 Nissan sunny light motor car.

Ext.A2: Policy certificate issued by reliance general insurance with certificate cum policy

number 991091823110000813.

Ext A3: Copy of lawyer notice issued to PVM automotive India private limited with

acknowledgement and postal receipt   dated 13/06/2019

Ext A4: Lawyer notice issued to Nissan motors India private limited.

Ext A5: insurance cover note number 1098939 issued by the oriental insurance company

limited.

Ext. A6: Copy of letter issued by second opposite party to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B10

Ext.B1: Copy of Nissan dealer agreement executed in the year 2014.

Ext.B2: Copy of certificate cum policy number 901091823110000813.

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member