IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 19thDAY OF JULY2021
Present: - Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.216/2016
K.K.Premji, S/o Krishnan,
Midhulapuri Veedu
Clappana P.O., Karunagappally.
(By Adv.S.M.Shereef) : Complainant
V/S
- Managing Director,
Kerala Car Pvt.Ltd.,
Kairali Ford 508 A,
Lillikkattu Building,
Edappally P.O., Kochi:Opposite parties
(By Adv.Sumith Mohan)
- Sri.Sheji John,
Sales Manager,
Kerala Car Pvt.Ltd.,
M.E.A Junction, Karikkode, Kollam
(By Adv.Sumith Mohan)
- Sujil,
Sales Executive, Kerala Car Pvt.Ltd.,
M.E.A Junction, Karikkode, Kollam
(By Adv.Sumith Mohan)
Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.SC, LLB, Member
This is acase based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.
In the month of February, 2016 the complainant has approached the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties at their show room named Kerala Car Private Ltd.,M.E.A.Junction, Karikkode, Kollam with intend to purchase his favourite car by name Ford Figo Admire Titanium. Then the opposite parties responded that no new model vehicle is available there at that time but a 2015 December model Ford car is with them and if he has purchased the same then they will provide attractive
cash discounts. Interested by its colour and by believing the assurance the complainant has remitted Rs.8,50,000/- including the vehicle premium on 20.02.2016 and the vehicle has handed over to him on 25.02.2016 along with insurance certificate, invoice and connected particulars in which the manufacturing month and year of the vehicle was recorded as December 2015. But on 17.03.2016 when he has received the RC particulars of the vehicle through post he could realize that the actual manufacturing month and year of the vehicle handed over to him was September 2015 model. The vehicle handed over to the complainant was 3 months older than that the opposite parties promised when he approached them at their show room. Moreover from the bills issued by the opposite parties it is evident that they didn’t give price discount as they have offered while at the time of purchase and thereby the respondents have made deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. The complainant had issued advocate notice to the opposite parties 1 to 3 on 25.06.2016 stating the above facts and claiming compensation butthe reply send by them was raising false allegations against the complaint. Hence the complaint.The complainant claims compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 12 % and Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the proceedings from opposite parties 1 to 3.
The opposite parties have filed a joint written version raising the following contentions. According to opposite parties the complaint is not maintainableeither in law or on facts and also barred bynon-joinder of necessary parties.It is admitted by the opposite parties that thecomplainant had approached them on February 2016 for purchasing of a Ford Figo Admire Titanium motor car and when they have showed the vehicle available with them the complainant was impressed with a car by seeing its specifications and features and requested them to give him cash discounts and accessories as compliment for purchasing the same. Then the opposite parties have replied that neither the manufacturer nor the dealer is providing any kind of cash discounts or offers for the same because the modelvehicle opted by him was very much on public demand during that period. When the complainant requested for cash discount several times, the opposite parties have providedcash discount since it is a 2015 model one. After negotiation between the parties, opposite partieshave offered discount of Rs.38665/- in which Rs.20,000/- as cash discount and Rs.18,665/- as free insurance solely for the reason that there was a difference in the model year. According to the opposite parties they have not informed the complainant that the vehicle sold to him was 15 December model but it was specifically mentioned that the vehicle is 2015 September make. The complainant had not made any payment for the insurance of the vehicle but the insurance amount of Rs.18,665/- was paid by them as part of the offer given to the complainant for purchasing the 2015 September model. The main allegation raised by the complainant is that he was not aware that the vehicle model is 2015 September since RC book was received on 17.03.2016. According to the opposite party they have sold the 2015 September model vehicle to the complainant only after informing the fact that it was September 2015 model vehicle and that is why they have given that much offer and cash discounts. Moreover they have handed over all documents including Form 22 certificate issued by the manufacturer and vehicle data sheet issued by the motor vehicle department to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle on 25.02.2016. For permanent registration of the vehicle all the relevant documents are necessary, here the registration proceedings of the vehicle was done by the complainant directly which means that all the documents which are necessary for the purpose of permanent registration of the vehicle including temporary registration certificate were handed over to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle itself. Moreover the entire details regarding the vehicle including the month and year of manufacturing were noted in the above said documents. Which means the complainant has purchased the vehicle by knowing fully that it was a 2015 September model one. According to the opposite parties it is a cooked up story that the complainant came to know about the model of the car as September 2015 model only when he has received RC book . Again engine number and chasis number entered in the retail invoice also shows that the 2015 September model vehicle was sold to the complainant. Here the complainant is trying to make a financial benefit out of a clerical mistake occurred in the insurance policy certificate and policy schedule of the vehicle issued by the third party having no connection with opposite parties because it was a separate contract executed between the complainant and a third party. Hence it was not binding on the opposite parties. It was the voluntary decision of the complainant to purchase the vehicle after knowing fully well that it was a September 2015 model one and also he was happy and satisfied to purchase the same by availing huge cash discount from the opposite parties. Moreover they have never made any unlawful gain by selling the vehicle to the complainant and they have not committed any unfair trade practice or there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not having any cause of action against the opposite parties.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties 1 to 3?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.P1series, P2 to P4, P5 series, P6 documents.Evidence on the side of the opposite parties consists of the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2(marked as RW2) and Exts.D1 to D4 and P7 documents.Complainant and opposite parties have filed notes of argument. No oral argumenton the side of the complainant.Opposite party has advanced oral argument.
Point No. 1 &2
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together. The following are the admitted facts. The complainant has purchased a Ford Figo Admire Titanium car from the show room of opposite parties 2 and 3 after paying Rs.8,73,800/-by attracting its model and by believing the assurance made by them that which is 2015 December model vehicle hence they would provide a discount of Rs.38,665/-. After temporary registration made by the opposite parties the car was handed over to the complainant on 25.02.2016 along with insurance certificate in which the manufacturing date and month of the vehicle was depicts as December 2015. But when the complainant received RC book on 17.03.2016 by post he could realize the fact that the car handed over to him was September 2015 model one.
According to the complainant he has purchased the particular vehicle on the belief that it is December 2015 model and he will get cash discount including free insurance. From Ext.P2 policy documents received by the complainant on 25.02.2016 along with vehicle shows that the manufacturing month and year of the vehicle depicts in the document is December 2015 as promised by the opposite parties 2 and 3. At the time of cross examination of PW1 he deposed that ‘ Insurancesâdetails ]d-ªp-sIm-Sp-¯Xv authorised dealer BWv. Manufacturing month and year insurance company bv¡vfurnish sNbvXXvdealer BWv. RC book e`n-¡p-¶XphscManufacturing month and year F\n¡v Ad-nbn-Ãm-bn-cp-¶p. dealer]dª AdnthDm-bn-cp-¶p-f-fq. Insurance sâdetails ]d-ªp-sIm-Sp-¯Xv authorised dealer BsW¶v A\-ym-b-¯n ]d-ªp-sIm-Sp-¡m-ª-sX-´mWv(Q) . dealerBWvinsurance Dw tax Dwhm§ntemporary registration DwIgn-ªmWvhml\w delivery \S-¯p-¶-Xv. AXp-sImvSnImcywimplied BWv.((Ans). Temporary registrationdealer BWvFSp-¡p-¶Xv F¶-Xn-\p-fftcJ-bp-tm(Q). tcJDv. Ext.P(1)(b) invoice details- ]d-bp-¶p-v. When the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 25.02.2016 he believed that it was only 2 months olderone that is December 2015 model but when he has received RC book of the vehicle on 17.03.2016 he could realize the fact that it was 6 month old vehicle that is September 2015 model.
The opposite parties have raised a contention that the model of a vehicle is determined by the year of the manufacture and not the moth of manufacture and depreciation is also calculated in case of insurance policies and also IDV values of the vehicle on the basis of year of manufacture and not months. It is further contended that the manufacturing date of a vehicle has got nothing to do with depreciation as long as the year of manufacture is same. It is true that there is no
chance of causing any difference in the value of the vehicle simply because there is 2, 3 months difference in the manufacturing date. But the opposite parties are bound to convince the purchaser/complainant thatthey are selling pre dated manufactured vehicle by 4 months. It is true that the opposite parties are offered cash discount. But there is nothing on record to indicate that the cash discount was given in lieu of the difference in the manufacturing date. The complainant has not felt that he has received some advantage for purchasing the car which was manufactured altogether 6 months back. The opposite parties have utterly failed to convince the complainant and also failed to give full cash discount offered in Ext.P1(b) account statement. The above act of the opposite parties would definitely amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The complainant has sought for Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum as relief No.1 for the sale of pre date manufactured vehicle. But as point out by the opposite parties there is no chance of causing any loss or depreciation for the vehicle as the manufacture year is the same (2015) though there is a difference of 3, 4 months in the date of manufacture. Furthermore the opposite parties have offered cash discount even though the same were not fully paid. In the circumstances we are not inclined to hold that the complainant has sustained any loss on account of purchasing 4 months back manufactured car and the complainant is entitled to get any amount on that count. Especially when the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of cash discount and compensation for the mental agony sustained the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.
Another allegation in the complaint is that at the time of purchase of the vehicle the opposite parties had offered and assured a cash discount of Rs.38,865/- and free insurance. The said allegation is probabalised byExt.P1(b) account statement. But Ext.D2 ledger account and deposition of DW1 would prove that the opposite parties hadpaid Rs.25,405/- only in favour of the complainant through his HDFC bank account at Thrikkakkara, Kochi on 03.03.2016 by way of cash discount . In view of the materials available on record it is clear that instead of giving Rs.38,665/- the opposite parties have given only 25,405/- as cash discount.
It is a well-accepted practice that a seller is bound to comply with all the offers he had made to the buyer while at the time of selling the product. Here the opposite parties have offered a discount of Rs.38,665/- but they have given only 25,405/- on that count.So they are bound to return the balance amount Rs.13260/-. In view of the materials on record we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties in the deal and thereby the complainant has sustained mental agony apart from financial loss. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the financial loss amended and also entitled to get compensation. The points answered accordingly.
Point No. 3
In the result the complaint stands allowed in the following terms.
- The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.13,260(38665-25405) being the balance amount offered towards cash discount to the complainant.
- Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed in the deal.
- Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
- Opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the above amounts along with interest @ 9% per annum for the entire amount except costs from opposite parties 1 to 3jointly and severally and from their assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19thday of July 2021. S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM: Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : K.K.Premji
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 series P1(a) : Retail invoice(copy) dated 20.02.2016 issued by Kerala Cars Pvt.Ltd.
Rs.8,00,087/-
P1(b) : Invoice Details
Ext.P2 : Reliance General Insurance
Ext.P3 : Certificate of Registration
Ext.P4 : Advocate Notice dated 24.05.2016
Ext.P5 series : postal receipts of notice
Ext.P6 : Acknowledgment card
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-
DW1 : O.P.Gopakumar
DW2 : Dileep S.
Documents marked for opposite party:-
Ext.D1 : vehicle data sheet (copy) dated 25.02.2016
Ext.D2 : Ledger account details
Ext.D3 : copy of statement
Ext.D4 : registration particulars
Ext.P7 : Reply notice
S.SANDHYA RANI: Sd/-
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM: Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
