IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.69/09 Between: Basheer Muhammed, aged 58 years, Shibu Vilasom, Tholiyanikkara, Anappara, Pathanamthitta. ..... Complainant And: - The Managing Director/
General Manager, Indus Motors (P) Ltd., (Maruthi Alto), Opp. South Gate, Cochin Shipyard, M.G. Road, Cochin. - The Branch Manager,
Indus Motors Co. Ltd., Kumbazha, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. T.A. Xavier & P.K. Aboobacker) ..... Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant purchased an Alto Car on 27.1.09 from the 2nd opposite party, which is the branch office of 1st opposite party. At the time of booking, the complainant demanded a 2009 model vehicle. Moreover at the time of purchasing the car, opposite parties offer was Rs.15,000/-, in which they have given only Rs.8,000/- and assured to pay the balance amount later. But instead of supplying 2009 model car, opposite parties’ fraudulently supplied a 2008 model car. 3. The opposite parties bound to supply a car having zero running kilometre. But at the time of delivery of the vehicle the kilometer reading was 139.3 and so the opposite parties had delivered a used second hand vehicle. The usual practice of supplying cars at showrooms brought in Trailor. Moreover when using the A.C pulling goes down. When informed the said fault, 2nd opposite party told that 1st opposite party is ready to replace the car and also assured to rectify all the defect. When he approached the 2nd opposite party with the car, an inexperienced person examined the car and said that there is no fault. Due to the said deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainant sustained heavy financial loss and mental agony. 4. According to the complainant, opposite parties fraudulently supplied a used old car, which caused mental and financial loss to the complainant. He sent notice to opposite parties on 5.5.09, but no response so far. Hence this complaint for the replacement of the car and for getting the balance offer amount of Rs.7,000/- with compensation and cost. 5. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact. Complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties. Complainant has raised an allegation of registering his vehicle as 2008 instead of 2009 and also raised allegations of manufacturing defect of the vehicle. Therefore the registering authority, the R.T.O., Pathanamthitta and Maruti Udyog Ltd. be necessary parties in this case. 6. The allegation that the complainant had purchased the Alto Car on 27.1.09 is not correct. The complainant paid the final payment on 28.1.09 and the vehicle was delivered on 29.1.09. The offer was only Rs.8,000/- and was only up to 28.1.09 and the same was given to the complainant. The contrary statement of Rs.15,000/- is absolutely false and raised only for the purpose of this case. They denied that, they had agreed to deliver a 2009 model vehicle. There was no agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties for the delivery of a 2009 model Alto Car. The vehicle manufactured in the year-end and delivered in the next year will be having this problem and this is a common phenomenon with every dealer of all vehicles. 7. The registration is done by the Regional Transport Authority on the basis of the cut off chassis number issued from Maruti. In this case also, the details including the cut-off chassis number was given to the R.T.O. But due to an inadvertent mistake from the part of R.T. Office concerned the model of the vehicle was wrongly entered as 2008 instead of 2009 in the registration certificate issued by the R.T.O authorities. 8. Opposite parties denied that they had delivered a used vehicle. This allegation is only with a misunderstanding and without knowing the actual facts. The vehicle was delivered by Maruti in their Truck at Kochi stockyard and the vehicle was driven to Pathanamthitta by road to deliver it to the complainant there. So the kilometer reading had come as such. At the time of taking delivery of the vehicle the complainant was not having such a complaint and the same was raised only for the purpose of this case. 9. Opposite parties denied that the vehicle is having low pulling and there was defect with the A/c. of the car. This allegation is also raised only for the purpose of this case. The opposite parties had delivered a trouble free car to the complainant. It is denied that 1st opposite party had agreed to replace the said vehicle with a new one. None of the opposite parties had given such a promise. It is true that the complainant had brought the vehicle for repair to these opposite parties on 2.4.09. They denied that the vehicle was inspected by untrained workers. There was no problem with the vehicle. Opposite parties are having trained workers as per the norms of Maruti and the vehicle was thoroughly inspected by them and found that there was no defect with the vehicle. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of these opposite parties. Therefore opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 10. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the relief sought for in the complaint is allowable? (3) Relief and Costs? 11. Evidence of the case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by him have been marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Evidence of opposite parties consists of the proof affidavit filed by the Branch Manager of 1st opposite party. After the closure of evidence, both parties heard. 12. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. Documents produced by him have been marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the postal receipt of the letter sent to opposite parties. Ext.A2 and A2(a) are the acknowledgment cards of Ext.A3. Ext.A3 is the copy of registered letter sent to opposite parties. Ext.A4 is the 7 pages of the booklet of his car. 13. In order to prove the opposite parties contention, 2nd opposite party filked proof affidavit. Apart from the proof affidavit, opposite parties had not adduced any documentary evidence to prove his case. 14. On the basis of the averments and contentions of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. There is no dispute regarding the transaction between the parties. The dispute regarding the model of Alto Car, the opposite parties contention is that the vehicle manufactured in the year and will be delivered in the next year. The vehicle’s registration is done by the Regional Transport Authority on the basis of the cut-off chasis number issued from Maruti. This aspect was admitted by the complainant in his deposition which is as follows:- “Company-bn \n¶pw sImSp¡p¶ cut off chassis number ASn\¯nemWv hn R.T.O. register sN¿p¶Xv F¶p ]dªm icnbmWv”. 15. According to opposite parties model of the vehicle was wrongly shown as 2008 instead of 2009 in the registration certificate, which is a mistake on the part of R.T.O. It is curable. If it be not true, complainant failed to adduce any better evidence to disprove the said contention. 16. With regard to the reading of 139 kilometre at the time of delivery of the vehicle, opposite parties contention is that the vehicle was delivered by Maruti in their Truck at Kochi stockyard and the vehicle was driven to Pathanamthitta by road. The running of 139 kilometre is inevitable to deliver the vehicle at Pathanamthitta. Therefore there is no basis that opposite parties delivered a used vehicle. With regard to the offer of Rs.15,000/-, complainant has not adduced by any evidence to prove that such and such amount of offer prevailed at the time of delivery of the vehicle. As per the allegation of low pulling at the time of working the A/c. and other complaints of the vehicle, complainant failed to take any step to appoint an expert to prove the defect if any. 17. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we are of the view that complainant miserably failed to prove his case. In the absence of cogent evidence, we are inclined to find any fault on opposite parties. Therefore, we cannot find any deficiency also. Hence complaint is not allowable. 18. In the result, complaint dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of March, 2010. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Basheer Muhammed Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of Postal receipts. A2 & A2(a) : Photocopy of Acknowledgment cards of Ext.A3. A3 : Photocopy of registered letter dated 5.5.09 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. A4 : Photocopy of the booklet of his car (7 pages) Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Basheer Muhammed, Shibu Vilasom, Tholiyanikkara, Anappara, Pathanamthitta. (2) The Managing Director/General Manager, Indus Motors (P) Ltd., (Maruthi Alto), Opp. South Gate, Cochin Shipyard, M.G. Road, Cochin. (3) The Branch Manager, Indus Motors Co. Ltd., Kumbazha, Pathanamthitta. (4) The StockFile.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
