By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member.
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. On 29/06/2017, the complainant had purchased a new Tata Tiago XT car from the opposite party and same was delivered by KVR Tata Motors, Thirurkkad, Perinthalmanna. On 25/07/2017 the vehicle was halted due to gear box complaint. So the service centre attended the complaint and vehicle was taken for repair work. After completion of repair work, the service centre handed over the vehicle. It is averred by the complainant that all the major complaints were reported to the authorised service centres and those complaints were rectified by them. It is admitted by the complainant that some time replacement of engine oil, coolant and brake oil were done by the service centres other the authorized one. After repayment of loan availed for purchase of the vehicle, the complainant had made an attempt to sell the vehicle due to financial crisis. When the True value Technicians of Maruti Suzuki examined the vehicle, in connection with sale of the vehicle, they found that vehicle had met with an accident. Moreover first owner of the vehicle was not the complainant. Then the complainant verified service history from KVR Tata, Tirurkkad and it was found that on 13/05/2017 vehicle was purchased by one Dr. Lilly Jose. At the time of verification, KVR Tata issued only 5 pages of service history instead of 6 pages. It is alleged that on 12/01/2023 when the complainant approached KVR, Chandakunnu, Nilambur for servicing of vehicle, they had issued bill without mentioning name of the owner of the vehicle. It is alleged that bills issued by the service centres were carried name of the first owner instead of the complainant. It is averred that the first owner had disclosed him that service centres of the vehicle was making annoyances by repeatedly contacting her for attending services. It is alleged by the complainant that the first opposite party sold out a second hand vehicle to him. It is alleged that the vehicle was already used by the first owner for almost 46 days and same was sold on the 47th day to the complainant. Moreover the vehicle had met with an accident or used as test drive vehicle prior to the purchase by the complainant. Now the value of the vehicle became deteriorated and intended to purchasers offer only low price comparing to the present market value of the vehicle. The act of the opposite party caused mental agony, hardship and financial loss to the complainant. The complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite party to take back the vehicle from him and refund Rs. 4,80,000/- (Rupees four lakh eighty thousand only) as the present market price of the vehicle. The complainant also prayed for another direction to the opposite party to pay compensation for sufferings of mental agony, financial loss due to the deficient acts of the opposite party.
2. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed version.
3. The opposite party denied allegations of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant that a second hand vehicle was sold to him and same had met with an accident or used as test drive vehicle are absolutely incorrect and are denied. It is admitted by the opposite party that on 13/05/2017 they had sold out a Tata Tiago vehicle and same was delivered from their temporary show room at Perinthalmanna. The complainant had thoroughly inspected the vehicle before its purchase. It is admitted that there was a gear box complaint to the vehicle and same was rectified by them with free of cost. It is contended that on the basis of above said reason, the complainant was contemplating that vehicle was a second hand one.
4. It is contended that the allegation of the complainant that vehicle was already sold on 13/05/2017 is false and incorrect. It is stated in the version that one Dr. Lilly jose booked for a Tata Tiago Striker Expresso brown colour car on 05/05/2017 by remitting booking charges. After arrival of the car, she declined to take the delivery by stating that she was interested in Striker blue colour car. Since Dr. Lilly jose had booked for Striker Expresso brown colour car, the bill was already generated in her name. So the opposite party advised to take delivery of the car. At the same time it was also advised that if somebody want an Expresso brown colour car, it will be possible to provide a blue colour car to Dr. Lilly Jose. Meantime the complainant had preferred and booked for Expresso brown colour car, as a result the opposite party sold out brown colour car to the complainant instead of delivering the same to Dr. Lilly jose. The said car was not used by anybody and it was a brand new car. It is contended by the opposite party that when a car is billed in the name of a person, same will be entered in the CRM Siebel system of the manufacturer. It is further contended that when the car was billed in the name of DR. Lilly jose, her name was entered in CRM Siebel system of the manufacturer. At the same time the registration and all other documents including invoice of the car were issued in the name of its real owner, the complainant. It is contended that the invoice of the car was prepared in the name of the complainant on 24/06/2017 and the total price including taxes and price of accessories insurance etc ., was Rs. 5,28,996/- and vehicle was delivered on 28/06/2017. It is also contended that temporary registration of the vehicle was obtained by the opposite party. It is contended that the complainant might have received a bill in the name of Dr. Lilly jose from another authorised service centre for the service of the vehicle as the vehicle was firstly billed in the name of Dr. Lilly jose and same was recorded in the CRM Siebel System of the manufacturer. The vehicle was never used by the opposite party for any purpose and was never taken out of the showroom. It is contended that first service of the vehicle was done on 25/07/2017, when the vehicle was completed 1,158 kilometers. The vehicle of the complainant was carrying warranty of two years or 75,000 kilometers of run whichever is attained earlier. So warranty was expired on 23/06/2019. During the period of warranty the opposite party had rendered all services or repair to the vehicle as per the terms of warranty. The complainant did not allege manufacturing defect to the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and no injury or damage was caused to the complainant by any act on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant and opposite party have filed affidavits in lieu of evidence. The documents of the complainant is marked as Ext. A1 to A7 documents. Ext.A1 series documents are the copies of service history dated 22/10/2022. Ext.A2 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 06/08/2022 issued from service centre of the vehicle. Ext. A3 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 23/06/2022 issued from service centre of the vehicle. Ext. A4 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 12/01/2023 issued from service centre of the vehicle. Ext. A5 document is the copy of insurance certificate cum policy schedule of the vehicle dated 24/06/2017. Ext.A6 document is the copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle dated 06/07/2017. Ext. A7 document is the copy of driving license of the complainant. The documents of the opposite party is marked as Ext. B1 to B3 documents. Ext.B1dcoument is the copy of bill issued by the opposite party for Rs. 5,28,937/- at the time of delivery of the vehicle. Ext. B2 series documents are the service history of the vehicle of the complainant. Ext. B3 document is the copy of terms and conditions of warranty.
6. Heard both sides in details. Perused documents and affidavits thoroughly. The Commission considered the following points to adjudicate the matter.
i) Whether the act of the opposite party is amounted to deficiency in service?
ii) Relief and cost?
7. Point No. (i) and (ii)
The Commission is considering point number (i) and (ii) together for the sake of brevity. It is find that the complainant has alleged that the opposite party had sold out a second hand car to him under the pretext of a brand new car. The complainant had produced Ext. A6 document to show the ownership of the vehicle in his favour.The date of registration of the vehicle is 06/07/2017. The driving license of the complainant is produced and marked as Ext. A7 document. The complainant produced insurance certificate cum policy schedule to show the insurance coverage of the vehicle and it is marked as Ext. A5 document. No dispute was raised by the opposite party with regard to Exts. A5, A6 and A7 documents. It is pleaded that vehicle was purchased on 29/06/2017 from the opposite party and he had arranged finance for the purchase of the vehicle. When the complainant attempted to sell the vehicle due to financial crisis it was revealed by the intended purchasers after verification of vehicle history that same was a second hand vehicle and had met with accident prior to the delivery to the complainant. As a result, the price of the vehicle came down when comparing to market price. The complainant alleged that the opposite party had earlier sold out the vehicle on 13/05/2017 to one Dr. Lilly Jose. Later same vehicle was sold to the complainant. The bills and documents received from authorised service centres of the manufacturer of the vehicle reveal that vehicle was sold to Dr. Lilly Jose prior to purchase of the complainant. The complainant has produced Ext. A1 series documents in that regard. In addition to Ext. A1 series documents, the complainant also produced Ext.A2 to Ext. A4 documents, to substantiate his pleadings.
8. Conversely, the opposite party has argued that the vehicle purchased by the complainant was a brand new car and it never met with an accident or used for test drive. It is argued by the opposite party that one Dr. Lilly jose booked for a Tata Tiago Striker Expresso brown colour car on 05/05/2017 by remitting booking charges. After arrival of the car, she declined to take delivery by stating that she was interested in Striker blue colour car. Since Dr. Lilly jose had booked for Striker Expresso brown colour car, the bill was already generated in her name. So the opposite party advised to take delivery of the car. At the same time it was also advised that if somebody want an Expresso brown colour car, it will be possible to provide a blue colour car to Dr. Lilly Jose. Meanwhile the complainant had preferred and booked for Expresso brown colour car, as a result the opposite party sold out brown colour car to the complainant instead of delivering the same to Dr. Lilly jose. The said car was not used by anybody and it was a brand new car. It is contended by the opposite party that when a car is billed in the name of a person, same will be entered in the CRM Siebel system of the manufacturer. It is further contended that when the car was billed in the name of DR. Lilly jose, her name was entered in CRM Siebel System of the manufacturer. At the same time the registration and all other documents including invoice of the car was issued in the name of its real owner, the complainant. The opposite party produced Ext.B1 document to show the price of the vehicle. Ext. B1 document would show that price of the car was Rs. 5,28,937/-. Ext. B2 series documents produced by the opposite party would show that the vehicle had undergone services from authorized service centers of the vehicle on different occasions. The opposite party also produced Ext. B3 document to show the terms and conditions of the warranty. It is argued by the opposite party that as per Ext. B3 document warranty of the vehicle shall be for a period of 24 months from the date of sale of the car or a mileage of 75,000 kilometers whichever occurs earlier. The Commission find that the complainant did not challenge Ext. B3 document.
9. In the evaluation of evidence, it can be seen that vehicle was booked by Dr. Lilly Jose prior to the purchase of the complainant. Ext. A1 series documents produced by the complainant would show that vehicle had undergone services on many occasions.
But as per Ext. A1 series document the owner of the vehicle was seen as Lilly Jose instead of the complainant. Ext.B2 series document produced by the opposite party would also show that the owner of the vehicle is Lilly Jose. In addition to that, Ext.A4 document produced by the complainant would show that name of the owner of the vehicle was wrongly entered therein. The Commission find that as per Ext. A5 and A6 documents complainant is the absolute owner of the vehicle. Ext. B1 document produced by the opposite party also show that complainant was purchased the said vehicle from the opposite party. So the Commission consider that the opposite party is liable to make out every document pertaining to the vehicle exclusively in favour of the complainant. It was incumbent upon the opposite party to take step to delete the name of Lilly Jose from the details of vehicle. The opposite party cannot shield any of its deficient service by shifting the responsibility on the shoulder of manufacturer. The Commission also find that the complainant did not allege any kind of manufacturing defect to the vehicle or to the parts of the vehicle. The opposite party sold out the vehicle in the capacity of an independent seller and all consideration was received from the complainant directly. So the bill issued in the name of a third party even after 6 years from the date of its purchase is amounted to deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party. The bill entered in the CRM Siebel System of the manufacturer in the name of Lilly Jose has caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. So the opposite party is answerable to the deficient act. The complainant got every right to receive bill in his favour for every services and repair works of his vehicle. There is no evidence available before the Commission to show that the opposite party had taken proper steps to rectify the defective entry in the CRM Seibel System of the manufacturer. Moreover there is no evidence adduced by the opposite party to show that entry in the CRM Seibel System cannot be altered or modified. So the Commission find that the opposite party is liable to pay compensation for the act of deficiency in service. It can be find that the vehicle was serviced on many occasions in the name of another person due to deficient act of the opposite party. So the Commission consider that the opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Moreover the opposite party is also liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
10 The Commission find that the complainant has failed to produce evidence with regard to the lowering of market value of the vehicle due to change in the name seen in Ext. A1 series documents as well as Ext.A4 document. According to the complainant the present market value of the vehicle is Rs. 4,80,000/-. The admitted fact is that vehicle is continuously used for more than 6 years. The Commission cannot rely upon mere pleadings of the complainant without any documentary proof in that regard. So the Commission is declined to accept the arguments of the complainant that market value of the vehicle was came down due to the error occurred in the bills and service history.
11. In the light of the discussions made above the complaint is allowed partly in the following manner:-
1) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- ( Rupees fifty thousand
only) to the complainant as compensation for the acts of deficiency in service
on the part of the opposite party .
2) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of realisation.
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2024.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A7
Ext.A1: Copies of service history dated 22/10/2022.
Ext.A2: Tax invoice dated 06/08/2022 issued from service centre of the vehicle.
Ext A3: Copy of tax invoice dated 23/06/2022 issued from service center of the
vehicle.
Ext A4: Copy of tax invoice dated 12/01/2023 issued from service centre of the
vehicle
Ext A5: Copy of insurance certificate cum policy schedule of the vehicle dated
24/06/2017.
Ext.A6: Copy of certificate of registration dated 06/07/2017.
Ext.A7 : Copy of driving license of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1: Copy of bill issued by the opposite party for Rs. 5,28,937/- at the time of
delivery of the vehicle.
Ext.B2: Service histories of the vehicle of the complainant.
Ext.B3: Copy of terms and conditions of warranty.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V,
