CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 9^th day of October, 2015

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               :  SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER                     Date  of filing : 21/08/2014

CC /115/2014

Subash.V.S,

Vellani Veedu,

Kizhuppillikara Post,                                       :        Complainant

Thrissur-680 702

(Party in Person)    

                                                          Vs

1. Managing Director,

    Vijay Motors (Unit of CUVV

    Automotive P.Ltd),  8/153(14),

    Chunnambuthara, Vadakkanthara Post,

    Palakkad-678012

    (By Adv.K.Venugopal)                                          :        Opposite parties

2. Managing Director,

    Vijay Motors,   23/669(3), New Bazar,

    Ottapalam, Palakkad-679 101

   (By Adv.K.Venugopal)

3. Regional Customer Support Manager,

    4^th Floor, Liv-N, Towers,

    Opp.Gold Souk, Vyttila,

    Cochin- 682 019.

    (By Adv.V.Krishna Menon & B.Sulfikar Ali)

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The above  complaint is filed for the relief of taking back the TATA Indigo MANZA Q Jet Aura ABS Diesel 2012 Model Car and give a new car with the mentioned facilities, by the opposite parties or to pay back the price of the car obtained by the 1^st opposite party and to pay an amount of Rs.2lakh as compensation.

The 1^st opposite party is the authorized dealer at Palakkad and the 3^rd opposite party is the customer support manager of the manufacturer of the car named TATA Indigo MANZA Q Jet Aura ABS Diesel 2012 Model Car.  The complainant purchased such a car from the 1^st opposite party on 28/7/2012. The total cost of the above car was 6,80,999/- for which hire purchase agreement was arranged with the TATA Financial Enterprise Pvt. Ltd on the terms that Rs.13,445/- is to be paid as monthly installments for a period of 48 months.  Before purchasing the car, the complainant had personally inspected the car and being convinced of the features available in a TATA Indigo MANZA Elan Car, booked for it.  It is submitted that all the features that are available during test drive was not available for him when the car was  delivered to him.  He approached the opposite party and complained about those facilities which were not available and the opposite party promised to find solutions for all the problems.  He contacted the opposite parties over phone several times but no satisfactory reply was received from them.  Later on he filed a complaint  to TATA Motors but a reply was received  from the part of 2^nd opposite party on behalf of TATA Motors.  The complainant further alleges that he had purchased the car on the promise made by the opposite parties, and by perusing the owners manual service book and brochure issued by the opposite parties.  Since the facilities mentioned in those brochures as well as owners manual are not made available to him during delivery he alleges that the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice which amounts to gross deficiency of service on their part.  Hence he had approached before this Forum seeking an order directing the op either to  pay Rs.2lakhs as compensation  for the mental agony and sufferings or to replace the existing car with the model that was issued to him and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of this litigation.  

The notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their respective version.  Opposite parties denies all the allegation contained in the complaint.  They admits that the complainant had purchased a TATA Indigo MANZA Q Jet Aura ABS Diesel 2012 Model Car from the opposite parties.  They had also admitted that the complainant had personally inspected and conducted test drive of TATA Indigo MANZA Elan.  TATA Indigo MANZA Elan Car is a topend model of these type of car having wide features. But the complainant had purchase  MANZA Aura ABS Model which is having only lesser price an lesser features than TATA INDIGO MANZA Elan.  All the features available in the TATA Elan model will not be available in TATA AURA ABS . Hence there is no merit or basis in the allegation of the complainant that as he was allowed to test drive a vehicle which had various features was not made available in the car purchased by him.  There was no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  It is submitted that at the time of booking the vehicle, customer is provided with the brochure of the various models of the vehicle and the features available in each of them.  Complainant had also been provided with brochure of various vehicles and it was only after going through the same and convincing him of the features available in an AURA car vis-a-vis an Elan car, had he with open eyes booked for an Aura Car.  The complainant had taken test drive during the year 2011, and had purchased the car only on 2012.  The opposite parties undertakes that there is any repairs or damages in the DIS system of the complainant’s car due to any loose contact they are ready to rectify those mistakes or even took replace the DIS system.  There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and is in no way liable to compensate the complainant.  Further the complainant has filed the complaint beyond the period of this limitation.  It has to be dismissed on that aspect.  The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint and hence it has to be dismissed. 

Complainant filed affidavit.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 also filed their affidavits.  Ext.A1 to A5 series was marked on the part of the complainant.  The evidence was closed and the matter was heard.

The following issues are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite

Parties?

2. If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

 ISSUES 1 & 2

          We have perused documents from the part of the complainant.  Ext.A5 series is the owners manual which is the common manual and service book issued to various models of TATA INDIGO MANZA.  According to the opposite party, also there is no separate service manual nor service book for separate models.  Hence the features available during test drive was not available to the complainant when he had choosed to purchase a different model.  Hence opposite parties cannot be blamed for the deficiency of service.  The complainant had filed this complaint without the true knowledge of the facts.  Hence complaint is devoid of any merits.  Hence complaint is dismissed without costs.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 9^th  day of October, 2015.

                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                   Smt. Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                                        Smt. Suma. K.P

                                                                       Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Original Purchase Bill of Vijay motors of Rs.6,80,999/- dtd 28/07/2012 issued in the name of complainant.

Ext.A2-Copy of the Brochure

Ext.A3-Copy of the E-mail Acknowledgement dtd.4/9/2012

Ext.A4-Copy of the Reply Notice dated 05/09/2012

Ext.A5 series - Owners Manual & Service Book

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Witness marked on the side of complainant

Nil     

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost Allowed

No  cost allowed.