IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
Dated this the 6th Day of November 2021
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.259/15
Muhammad Rafi : Complainant
S/o Abdul Jabbar
Kallumala Charuvila Veedu
Akkonam, Chadayamangalam, Kollam.
[By Adv.Vinayachandran& Adv.R.Vishnu Lal]
V/s
- Popular Mega Motors(India)Ltd. : Opposite parties
Having its registered office at
Kuttukaran Center, Mamangalam
Kochi-25
Represented by its Managing Director
- Popular Mega Motors(India)Ltd.
Branch Office
Opposite to Thattamala VHSS
Thattamala(PO)
Kollam.
[By Adv.Maruthadi.R.Sreeraj&Adv.K.N.Ajith Kumar]
FINAL ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President
This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The averments in the complaint as stand amended in short are as follows:-
The complaint is a lawyer practicing at the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. The 1st opposite party is the dealer of the vehicle manufactured by TATA Motors. The 2nd opposite party is the Branch Office of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party carried out its business functions through its branches including 2nd opposite party. On 05.03.2015 the complainant approaches the 2nd opposite party and purchased a goods carriage vehicle of 2015 model LMV. The 2nd opposite party promised the complainant to deliver the said LMV manufactured in the year 2015 for Rs.6,27,481/- including tax. Accordingly the complainant decided to purchase the same and directly paid Rs.1,01500/- to the 2nd opposite party and also entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Anchal Branch for paying the balance amount. Accordingly the Finance Company paid Rs.5,34,000/- to the 2nd opposite party. At the time of purchase of the vehicle the 2nd opposite party provided a discount of Rs.34000/- on monthly scheme to the complainant and also deducted the said amount from the total price of Rs.6,71,214/- . All the documentation works regarding the vehicle was done by the 2nd opposite party as promised by it and delivered the vehicle on 01.04.2015 to the complainant and also issued all documents regarding the vehicle to the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Anchal Branch. Thereafter the said vehicle got registered and obtained Registration No.KL/24/K/1559. On 05.06.2015 the complainant received the registration certificate of the vehicle and on perusal of the said certificate the complainant came to know that the said vehicle was manufactured in the month of October 2014 and not manufactured during the year 2015. He has also collected other documents from the finance company regarding the vehicle and came to know that the said vehicle was manufactured during the year 2015. On 08.06.2015 the complainant directly approached the 2nd opposite party and demanded to replace the vehicle by another 2015 model. But the officials of the 2nd opposite party rejected the above demand.
The complainant’s father has been running a rubber nursery and earns his livelihood from the said business. The complainant purchased the said vehicle for his father to use it in the business. Though complainant issued a notice to the opposite party demanding to replace the vehicle with a 2015 model one, the 2nd opposite party did not pay heed to his demand, though he received the notice. Complainant has the right to get a new vehicle manufactured in the year 2015 instead of the vehicle delivered to him. But he relinquishes the said right. The opposite party is bound to provide a discount of Rs.68394/- as model deduction. But the 2nd opposite party has not provided the said discount. The complainant has the right to realize the said amount and its interest @ 18% p.a from 01.04.2015 from the 2nd opposite party. The above conduct of the 2nd opposite party caused much mental agony to the complainant since the matter was circulated among his associates and the same affected his reputation. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- from the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complaint.
The opposite parties resisted the allegations in the complaint by filing a joint written version raising the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable as he is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Vehicle purchased by the complainant is a commercial vehicle and the same was being used on commercial purpose alone. The complainant is an Advocate and vehicle in this case is not required for earning his livelihood. The complainant is not having a case that he had purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood.
The complainant had never intimated the opposite parties about his desire to purchase a vehicle manufactured in the year 2015. However on 25.03.2015 the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- as booking charges of the vehicle. But the opposite parties never received an additional amount of Rs.5,23,210/- from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Anchal Branch. After deduction of finance charges the complainant was provided with a normal discount of Rs.34,000/- on monthly scheme and model deduction of Rs.68394/- since he expressed his desire to purchase 2014 model vehicle accepting the considerable deduction. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 10.04.2015 after paying the balance amount of Rs.25000/-. The complainant had specifically required a 2014 model vehicle inorder to avail huge discount on the model deduction. After enjoying such privileges to the opposite parties the complainant could not maintain a case for 2015 model vehicle. The delivery note of the vehicle issued along with the vehicle specifically stated the model of the vehicle as 2014. The opposite parties had not suppressed anything from the complainant. Based on the enquiries made by the complainant the offers provided by the opposite parties regarding the model of the vehicle and after evaluating the pros and cones of each model the complainant himself had choose to purchase 2014 model vehicle by availing a discount of Rs.68394/- for model deduction as an additional discount of Rs.34000/- as normal discount as per monthly discount as per monthly scheme. In the circumstance the contention of the complainant that only on 05.06.2015 on receipt of RC Book of the vehicle he came to know about the model of the vehicle is utter falsehood. Prior to the sending of lawyer notice the complainant never required the opposite parties to provide a 2015 model vehicle. The allegation of the complainant that he had demanded for the replacement of the vehicle with a 2015 model on 08.06.2015 is factually incorrect. On receipt of the lawyer notice the officials of the opposite parties contacted the complainant but he put forward illegal demand for the payment of a huge amount after satisfactorily utilizing the vehicle sold by the opposite parties. The complainant had not sustained any mental agony and therefore not entitled to get any compensation on that count. There is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties. None of the prayers sought for in the complaint is sustainable. The vehicle is being used by the complainant he is making profit out of it. The complainant has no allegation regarding the condition of the vehicle or with respect to the service of the said vehicle. The complaint has been filed on an experimental basis and the same is only to be dismissed with costs of the opposite parties.
The opposite parties have also filed a joint additional version, by admitting that the opposite parties had received additional amount of Rs.513210/- from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Anchal Branch after deduction of finance charges by way of delivery order No.2299441 dated 31.03.2015 and the claim of the complainant that the opposite parties received Rs.534000/- from the finance company is incorrect. Price of the vehicle is Rs.627481/-. Apart from purchasing the vehicle the said amount from the opposite parties the complainant had availed service for depositing road tax and also getting the vehicle registered for which the opposite party has realized Rs.17492/- and also realized Rs.24373/- for paying insurance premium. For obtaining temporary registration of the vehicle the opposite parties had paid Rs.350/- for the complainant. The complainant had also advised the service of doing yellow painting for commercial vehicle for Rs.1400/-. The complainant paid altogether Rs.558820/- whereas the total amount payable by the complainant was Rs.671214/- which itself would indicate that he had availed a discount of Rs.34000+68394 as contented by the opposite parties. The complainant had refused to pay further amount of Rs.10000/- even after repeated request that amount was declared as discount and opposite parties had closed the account of the complainant. The 1st opposite party is one of the most reputed vehicle dealers in the State and the attempt of the complainant is to compel the opposite parties to heed the illegal demand of the complainant. The opposite parties further pray to dismiss the complaint with costs and compensatory costs.
In view of the pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for in the complaint?
- Reliefs and costs.
Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1&Ex.P1 to P7 documents. Evidence on the side of the opposite party consists of the oral evidence of DW1 and Ext.D1 to D6 documents. Though the case was specifically posted for hearing from 02.12.2020, the learned counsel appearing for both sides have not turned up and advanced any oral argument. However the learned counsel for the opposite party filed notes of argument.
Point No.1&2
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together. The specific allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties is that on 05.03.2015 the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and purchased a Goods carriage vehicle of 2015 model LMV. The 2nd opposite party also promised the complainant to deliver 2015 model vehicle for Rs.627481/- including tax. Accordingly the complainant decided to purchase the same and paid an advance of Rs.101500/- to the 2nd opposite party and also availed a loan from the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Anchal Branch and paid the remaining balance of Rs.534400/- to the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party delivered the vehicle on 01.04.2015 to the complainant and also issued all documents relating to the vehicle to the finance company and only on receipt of registration certificate on 05.06.2015 the complainant came to know that the said vehicle was manufactured in the month of October 2014 and not manufactured during the year 2015 and thereby the 2nd opposite party has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The specific contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant had specifically required 2014 model vehicle inorder to avail huge discount on the model deduction after enjoying a huge deduction of Rs.68394/- for 2014 model vehicle the complainant filed the case so as to extract more money from the opposite parties. It is the further contention of the opposite parties that when the complainant enquired about the vehicle the opposite parties offered huge discount of Rs.68394/- for 2014 model vehicle. After evaluating the pros and cones of each model the complainant himself has chosen to purchase 2014 model vehicle by availing special discount of Rs.68394/- over and above the normal discount of Rs.34000/- and therefore the complainant had not sustained any loss or mental agony and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
Now we shall consider whether the opposite parties have delivered 2014 model vehicle against the order of 2015 model vehicle made by the complainant and thereby cheated the complainant. PW1 Muhammed Rafi is none other than the complainant herein. He is also practicing as Advocate and he has filed proof affidavit by re-iterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 to P7 documents. Ext.P1 is the Customer Order Form which would indicate that the complainant on 25.03.2015 paid an advance of Rs.20,000/- to the 2nd opposite party and ordered one vehicle, the price of which is shown as 627451/- against the item model what is written Zenon PU and not noted the model by quoting year. Colour option shown is red/silver and also agreed to deliver within 1 week. Ext.P2 is the receipt –cash voucher dated 01.04.15 evidencing that the complainant paid Rs.25000/- to Popular Mega Motors India Ltd(2nd opposite party). Ext.P3 is yet another receipt-cash voucher evidencing that the complainant has paid Rs.20000/- on 25.03.2015 to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.P4 is photo copy of the registration certificate of the above vehicle bearing No.KL 24 K 1599. As per the above record the vehicle was delivered on 01.04.2015 and got registered on 22.04.2015 at Sub Regional Transport office, Kottarakkara. The month and year of manufacturing is shown as October 2014. Ext.P5 is lawyer notice dated 04.07.2015 caused to sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party stating that only on receipt of RC Book from the RTO, Kottarakkara, the complainant came to know that the vehicle delivered was 2014 Model and also requesting to take back the old model vehicle and substitute a 2015 model vehicle and also seeking Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant. Ext.P6 is the postal receipt and P7 is the postal acknowledgement card evidencing the receipt of the lawyer notice. However during cross examination PW1 denied having received a discount of Rs.68394/- towards model deduction and Rs.34000/- as usual discount. In column No.8 of Ext.D2 sales certificate it is stated that month and year is October 2014 and D3 Data Sheet of the vehicle also the month and year of manufacturing is shown as 10-2014. Ext.D4 is the true copy of the ledger account maintained by the 2nd opposite party which would indicate that opposite party has been given discount of Rs.34000/- as normal discount and Rs.68394/- as additional discount and by adding those 2 records the price of the vehicle is Rs.635624/-. But Ext.D5 tax invoice would clearly indicate that the unit price of the vehicle is 54818.34 plus tax@ 14.50% amounting to Rs.79462.66. The gross total price of the vehicle is Rs.627481/-. Ext.D6 is the insurance certificate cum policy schedule issued by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. indicating that total premium of RS.24373/- has been realized from the complainant.
The oral evidence of DW1 coupled with Ext.D1 to D6 documents would indicate that the total value of the vehicle as per Ext.D5 tax invoice is Rs.627481/- including tax. Ext.P1 customer order form also would indicate that the price of the vehicle is Rs.627481/-. According to the complainant he paid the entire amount as follows. On 4 occasions he paid Rs.101500/- and he has availed a loan from the finance company and paid Rs.534000/-through that company. Apart from that he paid Rs.36500/- towards tax, insurance etc. The definite case of the complainant is that he has paid Rs.101500/- apart from the amount due towards tax, insurance etc. Ext.D1 is the delivery order issued by finance company to the 2nd opposite party which would indicate that an amount of Rs.513210/- has been adjusted against the trade apart from advance given by them to the 2nd opposite party. Even though the loan amount sanctioned to the complainant is Rs.534000/- the amount credited to the 2nd opposite party by the finance company is only Rs.513210/- which is clear from Ext.D1 itself. Therefore the claim of the complainant that the opposite party has received altogether Rs.671214/- is incorrect.
The main relief sought for in the complaint is to declare that the complainant is having right to realize Rs.68394/- as the benefit of model reduction and also permit him to realize the said amount @ 18% p.a from 01.04.2015 till realization from 2nd opposite party. The 2nd relief sought for is compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- for the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. The 3rd and final relief sought for is regarding costs. Now we shall consider whether the complainant is entitled to realize Rs.68394/- being the discount for model reduction in respect of the vehicle purchased by him from the 2nd opposite party.
There is no satisfactory documentary evidence to indicate that the complainant had directly paid Rs.101500/- on different occasions before actually taking delivery of the vehicle. Ext.D4 document would indicate that the complainant on 25.03.2015 has paid cash Rs.20000/- against the purchase order. This may be the advance amount paid by him. On the very next day ie, on 01.04.2015 the complainant has seen paid Rs.25000/- and on 30.04.2015 he paid Rs.10,000/- and on 02.05.2015 he paid Rs.610/-. Altogether he paid Rs.43733/- out of which Rs.43615/- has been expended as road tax, registration charges, Temporary permit charge, yellow painting charge, payment of insurance premium etc. The 2nd page of Ext.D4 ledger account maintained in the name of the complainant in respect of the sale of vehicle would also indicate that the 2nd opposite party has received Rs.513210/- from finance company Cholamandalam by hypothecating the vehicle. It is also clear from Ext.D4 that the 2nd opposite party has given 34000/- as normal discount and Rs.68394/- towards additional discount .
In the circumstances the contention of the 2nd opposite party that the complainant was aware of the fact that the vehicle to be delivered is of 2014 model and also accepted considerable reduction in the price by way of special discount is acceptable and there is no merit in the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle was manufactured during 2014 October was concealed to the complainant and sold the vehicle as if it is a 2015 model vehicle, after receiving Additional discount of Rs.68394/- for model reduction apart from the normal discount of Rs.34000/- as evident from Ext.D4 document. In the circumstances we find no merit in the case of the complaint in this regard.
The material available on record discussed above would clearly indicate that the complainant was made aware of the model reduction and also given the benefit of the same by granting additional discount of Rs.68394/- as indicated in Ext.D4 and the complainant has paid the remaining amount only. The complainant has no allegation that the vehicle is suffering from any material defect or the opposite parties have not provided sufficient service to the vehicle as and when required. In the circumstances we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The points answered accordingly.
Point No.3
In the result complaint stands dismissed.
Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 6th day of November 2021.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Muhammad Rafi
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext P1 : Customer Order Form
Ext.P2 : Cash voucher for Rs.25000/- dated 01.04.2015.
Ext.P3 : Cash voucher for Rs.20000/- dated 25.03.2015
Ext.P4 : True copy of RC Book
Ext P5 : Lawyer notice
Ext.P6 : Postal receipt
Ext.P7 : Acknowledgement card
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-
DW1 : Santhosh Babu
Documents marked for opposite party:-
Ext.D1 : True copy of delivery order
Ext.D2 : True copy of delivery certificate
Ext.D3 : True copy of vehicle data sheet
Ext.D4 : True copy of ledger account
Ext.D5 : True copy of tax invoice
Ext.D6 : True copy of goods carrying package policy certificate cum policy schedule.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
