Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant booked a motor car (49 Maruti Swift Dsire – Pearl Metallie arctic white) from the opposite parties by paying an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 10/03/2012.  On the same day he paid Rs.40,000/- to the 5^th opposite party vide Receipt No. REC11007362. Subsequently the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- by demand draft through Corporation Bank, Pathanamthitta branch to the 5^th opposite party.  According to the complainant an amount of Rs. 7,47,203/- was charged by the opposite parties for his vehicle instead of the real price Rs. 6,64,365/-.  At the time of booking of the vehicle the opposite parties persons assured that they are dealing with high standard of vehicles which is having high quality and quick sale service all over India and also informed that the price of the vehicle is so reasonable.  It is further assured that the products of the opposite parties are manufactured in an accurate measurement and in high quality. As a result of this assurance the complainant decided to purchase this vehicle.  It is contented that after 7 days of its purchase the vehicle has shown severe pick up problem and the matter was informed to 4 to 6 opposite parties.  It is further contended that the same pick up problem was happened so many time at the time of long travelling.  Though the complainant informed all these details and further entrusted the vehicle to the six opposite party they did not succeed to cure the defect.  The technician by name Kishore (technician cum sales manager) belongs to 6^th opposite party examined the vehicle and admitted that the vehicle is suffering pick up problem.   Even though the complainant and her family depend the same vehicle for their use they suffered a lot from the non performance of the vehicle.  It is further contented that due to the non performance of the vehicle she missed so many good event of her life, like good functions, pilgrimage etc.  According to the complainant the opposite parties miserably failed to redress the grievances of the complainant and the act of the opposite parties are clearly comes under deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant, for granting a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, financial loss Rs. 50,000/-,  cost etc.etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to opposite parties.  All the opposite parties are entered appearance and opposite parties 1 to 3 filed their version.  Opposite parties 4 to 7 are also filed a separate version in this case.  The version of opposite party 1 to 3 are as follows.  According to this opposite parties they are not tracing a serious dispute with regard to Para 1 to 6 of the complaint.  It is contented that the vehicle is valid only for Rs. 6,64,365/- and the extra charge paid by the complainant is for insurance, registration, extended warranties, extra accessories and for extra fittings.  According to this opposite parties                    the contention of the complaint in Para 9 to 18 has to be proved by the complainant.  It is further contented that the real problem regarding the vehicle is not revealed through the complainant.  It is stated that this opposite parties are not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.  It is further contented that as on first free service on road test there was no disorder for the vehicle.  And on the second free service there was no disorder seen on road test of the vehicle.  At the time of 3^rd free service dated: 10/06/2012 the vehicle was returned to the complainant after recording full satisfaction. On 23/10/2013, 07/04/2015 and 17/03/2015 the complainant approached to this opposite parties for periodical maintenance and on that time no defect was found on the vehicle.  Opposite parties 4 to 7 are also filed the same version before the Forum as such no need for its repetition.

                   4. The Forum perused the complaint, versions and records before us and framed the following issues:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service 

          as alleged by the complainant?

2. Regarding cost and reliefs.

5.  In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant he who filed a proof affidavit and she is examined as PW1.  Ext A1 to A20 were marked through the PW1. Ext. A1 is the receipt issued from M/s AVG Motors Ltd., Baker Junction, Kottayam No. 11003821 dated: 24-09-2011.  Ext. A2 is the copy of the DD No.191546 dated: 13/07/2012.  Ext. A3 is the copy of the letter No. OR/NO/CVEHI/42/2012 dated: 13/07/2012.  Ext. A4 is the copy of the Temporary Certificate of Registration No: A 0971286 dated 24/07/2012.  Ext. A5 is the copy of the vehicle data sheet dated 24/07/2012.  Ext. A6 series are the copy of the free inspection coupon (3 Nos.)  Ext. A7 is the copy of the letter issued from 3^rd opposite party’s office.  Ext.A8 is the copy of the invoice cum certificate of extended warranty registration dated 24/07/2012.  Ext. A9 is the copy of the vehicle pick –up slip issued from the 5^th opposite party dated 30/10/2014.  Ext. A10 copy of the insurance from the New India Assurance Company dated: 24/07/2012.  Ext. A11 is the copy of the Sale Certificate No:

VSL 12000728 dated: 24/10/2013 issued from the 7^th opposite party.  Ext. A12 is the copy of the list of accessories (2 Nos.) issued from the 6^th opposite party.  Ext. A13 is the copy of the invoice No: BR13001500 dated: 28/10/2013 issued from the 7^th opposite party.  Ext. A14 is the receipt of payment No: REC12002342 dated: 13/07/2012.  Ext. A15 is the job slip issued from the 5^th opposite party dated: 21/08/2012.  Ext. A16 is the copy of the Tax/Vehicle and charges invoice from the 5^th opposite party.  Ext. A17 is the copy of the vehicle pick-up slip dated: 30/10/2014 issued from the 6^th opposite party.  Ext. A18 is the letter issued from the 6^th opposite party on 24/12/2014. Ext.  A19 series are the copy of the invoices and bills issued to the complainant from the opposite parties (Nos:17).  Ext. A20 is the copy of the Job order card No. 6460 dated: 08/04/2014 from the Plathottam Automobiles (Munnar). Ext. A21 is the letter dated 01/10/2016 sent by the State Public Information Officer, Regional Transport Office, Pathanamthitta to the complainant. Ext. A22 is the letter dated 22/09/2016 sent by the State Public Information Officer, Regional Transport Office, Pathanamthitta to the complainant.  Apart from the evidence of PW1, the complainant examined PW2 and PW3 for the sake of complainant’s evidence.  On the other side opposite party 7 examined as DW1 in this case.  A Commissioner by name Ajitha Kumar.K.S who is also examined as CW1, in this case and through him the commission report is marked as Ext.C1 along with A21 and A22.  The complainant filed an I.A 122/16 to set aside the commission report filed by the commission in this case.  The said I.A is heard and decided to be considered at the time of final disposal of the case.  After the closure of evidence, we heard both sides.

6. Point No. 1 &2:- For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point No.1 and 2 together.  The complainant Ajitha Kumary filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and she is examined as PW1.  When we go through the proof affidavit of the PW1 it can be seen that the contents of the proof affidavit is more or less as per the tune of her complaint.  The Ext. A1 is the document to prove the advance amount Rs. 10,000/- which was paid to AVG Motors (OP6).  Ext. A2 is the evidence to shows that the complainant paid an amount and advance amount of Rs.5,90,000/- to opposite party 6 AVG Ltd. dated: 13/07/2017.  Ext. A3 is a letter shows that the Branch Manager, Corporation Bank issued a letter in favour of AVG Motors stating that a demand draft for an amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- was credited in favour of AVG Motors along with a request to deliver the vehicle to the complainant.  As per Ext.A4 it is to see that there is a temporary registration issued in favour of the complainant as KL-05-R-TEMP-2607 and A5 is a letter issued by AVG Motors in favour of the complainant with regard to the details of the vehicle which was marked as Ext. A5.  As per Ext. A6 to A8 it can be inferred that the vehicle is having an extended warranty including three free inspection coupons etc.  As per Ext. A9 it can be seen that on 30/10/2014 the vehicle entrusted to AVG Motors Limited, Pallipady, Pathanamthitta for a service in connection with pick-up.  Ext. A10 is the certificate of Insurance of the vehicle for a period of 24/0/12 to 23/07/2013.  As per Ext. A11 the details of the vehicles are proved the said certificate was issued by the AVG Motors Ltd., Bekary Junction, Kottayam.  Ext. A12 is the details of the accessories of the vehicle which was issued by AVG Motors, Pathanamthitta in favour of the complainant.  As per Ext. A13 it can be inferred that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 18,348/- on 28/10/2013 for the maintenance, denting and painting of this vehicle.  Ext. A14 is the receipt shows that on 13/07/2012 OP6 accepted GD referred in Ext.A2.  Ext. A15 dated: 21/08/2012 is the receipt of first service of the vehicle which was issued from OP6 office at Pathanamthitta.  It is proved that the vehicle has a taxable price of Rs.6,84,365/- which was paid by the complainant to the opposite party concerned as the consideration of vehicle and the said payment can be proved by Ext. A16.  As per Ext. A17 it is further proved that on 30/10/2014 the complainant entrusted the vehicle to OP6 workshop for the low pick-up problem.  When we peruse the Ext. A18 it is proved that the OP6 AVG Motors received the dispatched parts on 25/12/2014 and also directed to the complainant to give an appointment to ‘pick-up the vehicle on 27/12/2014’.  Through the Ext. A19 it is evident to see that on 07/04/2014 the vehicle entrusted to OP6 workshop for some services and labour works. As per Ext.A20 it shows that on 08/04/2014 a workshop at Munnar the vehicle was entrusted as a result of break down problem. It also shows that the ‘low pick-up’ was a matter considered there.  Ext.21 and 22 are the document shows that on 22/06/2016, 25/06/2016, 27/06/2016 of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector connected to RTO Office, Pathanamthitta were absent in the RTO Office, due to court duty.  Ext. A22 it shows that on the above dates the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector’s duty was at RTO Office Pathanamthitta.  Ext. C1 is the commission report prepared by one AjithKumar, AMVI, RTO Office, Pathanamthitta.   He deposed in the cross examination of the complainant, “ വാഹനം പരിശോധിച്ച സമയം രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയിട്ടില്ല. വാഹനം പരിശോധിച്ച സമയത്തെ meter reading ഉം പരിശോധന അവസാനിപ്പിച്ച സമയത്തെ  reading ഉം ഞാൻ രേഖപ്പടുത്തിയിട്ടില്ല. ഞാൻ ഈ വാഹനം ഓടിച്ച് നോക്കിയിട്ടേയില്ല എന്നത് ശരിയല്ല ”. He again adds “OP-യെ കൊണ്ട് വാഹനം ഓടിക്കാൻ  Forum നിർദ്ദേശിച്ചിരുന്നില്ല. എങ്കിലും ഞാൻ അവരെ  ഓടിക്കാൻ അവസരം നൽകി. ഹർജിക്കാരിക്ക് വേണ്ടി ആരും പ്രതിനിധിയായി വാഹനം ഓടിച്ചില്ല” The complainant’s learned counsel asked certain question with regard to the credibility of the inspection of the Commission in respect of this vehicle.  When we go through the C1 report and the deposition of CW1 it is clear that as per his opinion the vehicle is not having any defect as alleged by the complainant.  Anyway the demeneur of the CW1 at the time his examination it also shows that the said witness is not at all reliable or creditable when we evaluate the merit of Ext.C1 report.  Hence we would have to discard the evidence adduce by CW1 in this case.  When we peruse Ext. 21 and 22 the details of the attendance of the Motor Vehicle Inspector at RTO office, Pathanamthitta it is also doubtful when and where the CW1 had been on the relevant dates stated in Ext. 21 and 22.  These all facts are highly affected the credibility of CW1, moreover at the time of hearing complainant’s learned counsel conceded the evidence of Ext.C1 in this case.  The PW2 (Jose) is a driver of this vehicle for few days and he was witnessed the pick-up defect of the vehicle at the time of the travel to Munnar and some other places.  Through him Ext.A20 is also marked by the complainant.  PW3 is also the driver who was also driven the vehicle and at the time of cross-examination he admitted that he has no academic knowledge about the mechanism of the vehicle or he is not even having a badge for driving.  He deposed that he had no knowledge about CC, pulling power, pick-up which is related to vehicle etc.  Hence, we can safely discard his evidence in this case.   On the other side opposite party 7 was examined as DW1 he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  At the time of cross-examination the complainant’s learned counsel put a question with regard to the locus-standi of this witness to depose for and on behalf of opposite party 7.  He answered in-cross “OP7 ന് വേണ്ടി ഹാജരാക്കിയ വക്കാലത്തിൽ ഞാൻ ഒപ്പിട്ടിട്ടില്ല. ടിയിൽ    Rejilal ആണ്. ഒപ്പിട്ടിരിക്കുന്നത്. ആ സമയത്ത്  Rejilal ആയിരുന്നു ടി  workshop ലെ  manager ഇപ്പോൾ ടിയാൻ ഈ workshop ൽ work ചെയ്യുന്നില്ല. Thiruvalla ക്ക് transfer ആയി  (Q) നിങ്ങൾ ഈ കേസിൽ  OP7 ന് വേണ്ടി ഹാജരാകാൻ  നിയമാനുസൃതമായ രേഖ എന്തെങ്കിലും ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ  (A) ഇല്ല  (Q) നിങ്ങൾക്ക് ഈ പരാതിയിൽ പറയുന്ന കാര്യങ്ങൾ ഒന്നും അറിയില്ലല്ലോ.  . (A)  അറിയാം”.

7. When we are perusing the evidence of the opposite parties we need not go into the locus-standi of opposite parties witness at this stage.  It is to be noted that at present he is the Manager of the OP7 workshop.  The evidence adduced by DW1 through his proof affidavit and deposition in-cross are to be considered as the defense of the opposite parties. In proof affidavit DW1 clearly stated this aspect without any shadow of doubt.  It is true that at the time of cross-examination the learned counsel appearing for the complainant spent time to challenge the academic and auto mobile qualification of DW1. 

8.  The main question to be considered here is whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  When we evaluate the evidence of PW1 in this case it can be inferred that the vehicle which is owned by the complainant is suffering a pick up problem.  In order to substantiate the contention of PW1 we can rely Ext. A9, A15 and A17 which are issued by 5^th and 6^th opposite parties respectively.  As per Ext.A19 PW1 try to prove that he spent some amount for the vehicle but as per the bills that amount has not been calculated.  Though the complainant produced certain photocopies of the bill through Ext. A19 the calculation of the amount in Ext.A19 has not been co-related with any of the cost incurred for the spare parts of the vehicle.  The complainant has not convinced or to find any solution in this aspect.  As discussed earlier that the complainant has a case with regard to the mechanical defect of the vehicle, the complainant has not proved the mechanical defect of the vehicle through the commission report Ext.C1.  It is true that the complainant filed a petition as IA.122/16 to set aside the commission report Ext. C1. In the light of the submission of the complainant’s learned counsel there is no need to go into the merits of said IA.122/16.  If so, whether the complainant proved the deficiency in service of the opposite parties without considering Ext.C1 commission report?  As stated earlier, we do understood, that the complainant spent money for the Redressal of the pick-up problem of this vehicle but it is not been redressed by the opposite parties concerned.  No doubt, the complainant PW1 has got right to resolve the pick-up problem of the vehicle by opposite parties concerned.  It is to be noted that the vehicle involved in question has no warranty at the time of the questioned period.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant it can be inferred that though the complainant suffered a lot by using the vehicle and he spent so much money for solving the pick-up problem, even then the problem is still existing in that vehicle.   As discussed earlier on the other side though DW1 examined for the opposite party 7 no document has been produced or marked on their side.  According to DW1 in chief he deposed “ടി വാഹനം പരിശോധിക്കുകയും ആയതിൻറെ  report പരാതിക്കാരൻ ഭാഗത്തു നിന്ന് ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. ടി  report Ext. A19 ആയി തെളിവിലേക്ക് എടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ട് ”. Though the complainant produced and marked Ext. A19 either in their affidavit or at the time of examination of PW1 no convincing details has been adduced by the complainant to substantiate their case.  In the light of the evidence available before us we find that complainant is not eligible to get any kind of compensation or replacement of vehicle as prayed.  We find that the opposite party 7 who is the authorized dealer of the opposite party1 (manufacturer) who is also conducting maintenance work in their depot, the said opposite party is liable to solve the pick-up problem of the vehicle within a reasonable time.    The manufacturers opposite party 1 to 3 and dealer opposite party 7 are jointly and severely liable to the complainant with regard to the deficiency in service against the complainant.  Therefore, we find that the complainant is only a partly allowable.  Point No.1 and 2 are also found accordingly.

9.  In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite party 7 the Manager AVG Motors, Kumbazha who is the authorized dealer of opposite party 1(manufacturer) is here by directed to solve the pick-up problem of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-05-R-TEMP-2607 within 30 days of the receipt of this order and also furnished a fitness certificate from the Motor Vehicle Inspector of Pathanamthitta with a countersign of RTO, Pathanamthitta.  The complainant is liable to pay the maintenance expenditure for solving the pick-up problem as per order No.1.

2. The opposite party 1 to 7are also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

3. No order for compensation.

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of April, 2017.

                                                                                             (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :      (Sd/-) 

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Ajitha Kumary.

PW2  :  Jose.P.J.

PW3  :  Christopher

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Receipt issued from M/s AVG Motors Ltd., Baker Junction,

        Kottayam No.11003821 dated: 24-09-2011. 

A2 :  Copy of the DD No.191546 dated: 13/07/2012.

A3 :  Copy of the letter No. OR/NO/CVEHI/42/2012 dated: 13/07/2012. 

A4 :  Copy of the Temporary Certificate of Registration

        No: A 0971286 dated 24/07/2012.

A5 :  Copy of the vehicle data sheet dated 24/07/2012. 

A6  series : The copy of the free inspection coupon.

A7 :  Copy of the letter issued from 3^rd opposite party’s office. 

A8 :  Copy of the invoice cum certificate of extended warranty registration dated

         24/07/2012.

A9 :  Copy of the vehicle pick –up slip issued from the 5^th opposite party dated

         30/10/2014.

A10:  Copy of the insurance from the New India Assurance Company dated:

         24/07/2012. 

A11:  Copy of the Sale Certificate No: VSL 12000728 dated: 24/10/2013 issued

          from the 7^th opposite party. 

A12 : Copy of the list of accessories (2 Nos.) issued from the 6^th opposite party.

A13 : Copy of the invoice No: BR13001500 dated: 28/10/2013 issued from the

          7^th opposite party.

A14 : Receipt of payment No: REC12002342 dated: 13/07/2012.

A15 : Job slip issued from the 5^th opposite party dated: 21/08/2012. 

A16 : Copy of the Tax/Vehicle and charges invoice from the 5^th opposite party.

A17 : Copy of the vehicle pick-up slip dated: 30/10/2014 issued from the 6^th

          opposite party. 

A18 : Letter issued from the 6^th opposite party on 24/12/2014.

A19 series : Copy of the invoices and bills issued to the complainant from the

         opposite parties.

A20 : Copy of the Job order card No. 6460 dated: 08/04/2014 from the

A21: Letter dated 01/10/2016 sent by the State Public Information Officer,

        Regional Transport Office, Pathanamthitta to the complainant.

A22 : Letter dated 22/09/2016 sent by the State Public Information Officer,

          Regional Transport Office, Pathanamthitta to the complainant. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  : Shaiju.K.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

                                                                                                      (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Ajitha Kumary, Koppara Veedu, Vettoor P.O, Kumbazha (Via),

                    Pathanamthitta – 689 653.

2. The Director & Managing Executive, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd – 1,

          Nelsen Mandela Road, Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070.

3. The Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

          Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122 015, Hariyana.

4. Pankaj Narula, Executive Officer (Service),

          Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurgaon Road,

         Gurgaon – 122 015, Hariyana.

5. The Manager, A.V.G. Motors Ltd., Service & Spare Department,

          Erayilkadavu, Kottayam – 686 001.

6. The Sales Manager, A.V.G. Motors Ltd, Baker Junction,

          Kottayam – 686 001.

7. The Manager, A.V.G Motors India Ltd., Pallippady, Mylapra P.O.,

          Pathanamthitta.

8. The Manager, A.V.G. Motors, Kumbazha,

Pathanamthitta – 689 653.