DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 19th day of March 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 08/06/2011
(C.C.No.86/2011)
Viswanathan.P.K.
S/o.Kuttan,
2/409, Palellam,
Padinjarekkara,
Karimba P.O.
Mannarkkad Taluk,
Palakkad
(By Adv.John John) - Complainant
V/s
1. Maxim Motors
(Rep.by its Manager)
A Division of Maxim Traders (P) Ltd.
Marutharoad,
Chandranagar,
Palakkad – 678 007
(By Adv.T.S.Rajeshkumar)
2.Maxim Motors,
(Rep.by its Manager)
Meenus Building,
34/251, NH 47, Bye Pass
Edappally, Cochin – 682 024 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.Jalaja Madhavan)
O R D E R
By Smt.BHANUMATHI.A.K. MEMBER
Brief facts of the complaint.
The complainant in this case has booked a Euro – III 2011 model Swaraj Mazda Vehicle on 18/1/11 with the second opposite party. The above mentioned vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 14/2/2011. At the time of delivery the 1st opposite party made the complainant believe that the vehicle delivered to him is Euro III 2011 model vehicle and believing the words of the opposite parties, the complainant paid Rs.8,50,000/- which is the price of Euro III 2011 model vehicle. The 1st opposite party had not handed over the vehicle owner’s manual service book and other related documents to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle. When the complainant demanded for the same 1st opposite party informed that the documents will be handed over to the complainant within 15 days.
The complainant received the RC on 16/3/11. In the RC the month and year of manufacturing of the vehicle was mentioned as Jan-2010. It was only on receipt of the RC the complainant understand that the vehicle delivered to him was not Euro III 2011 model but Euro II 2010 model vehicle. At the time of booking the said vehicle the opposite party had assured that the demand of the complainant for having Euro III 2011 model vehicle will be satisfied. Inspite of the assurance and promise made by them, the opposite parties have delivered Euro II 2010 model vehicle with an intention of promoting sales and make unlawful profit. Even after the 1st service the opposite party has failed to provide the vehicle owners manual service book and other related documents. Due to the above said acts of the opposite parties the complainant issued a notice to 2nd opposite party demanding them to take back the 2010 model vehicle and provide a Euro III 2011 model vehicle. 2nd opposite party sent reply dated on 12/5/11 stating false contentions.
The vehicle of 2010 January model is having much lesser value than what the complainant has paid. The complainant made to pay the price of Euro III 2011 model vehicle but he was given 2010 model vehicle. The complainant had availed financial assistance from the Cholamandalam financiers for purchasing the said vehicle for which he has to pay Rs.11,000/- per month towards the monthly instalments. The complainant was not able to use the vehicle for the reason stated above which has resulted in great financial loss to the complainant. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle delivered to the complainant and deliver a new Euro III 2011 model vehicle and pay an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant as compensation with 12% interest and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying all the contentions put forward by the complainant. Opposite parties denying the booking of a Euro III 2011 model Swaraj Mazda vehicle on 18/1/11 by the complainant. Opposite parties submits that it is not possible to get a 2011 model vehicle in January 2011. 2011 Model vehicle will be available for delivery only after March after completing the registration proceedings by the Govt.Of India. The complainant insisted on getting the vehicle emergently and hence the available vehicle was handed over to the complainant. Opposite parties submits that they are only doing the duty of delivering the vehicle supplied by the Swaraj Mazda Company as per the demand of the party. The complainant insisted on getting Euro III Vehicle and the same was delivered to the complainant. Opposite party had handed over all the available documents to the complainant. The complainant had not raised any complaint about the vehicle at the time of delivery. If the complainant was having any complaints about the vehicle he should have kept the vehicle without using the vehicle and should have informed the concerned officials immediately the complainant had used the vehicle for months and now turned up with allegation to get the vehicle replaced with a better one. If there is any irregularity or defects in the vehicle that are to be cured by the Swaraj Mazda company. Swaraj Mazda company is not impleaded as a party to the litigation. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 – A3 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 – B4 marked on the part of opposite parties with objection. Complainant filed answers to the interrogatories filed by the opposite party.
Heard the opposite parties and gone through the documents.
The complainant booked a Euro III 2011 model Swaraj Mazda vehicle on 18/1/11 with the 2nd opposite party. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 14/2/11. At the time of delivery 1st opposite party made the complainant believe that the vehicle is Euro III 2011 model vehicle. The complainant paid Rs.8,50,000/- which is the price of Euro III 2011 model vehicle. The opposite parties had not handed over the vehicle owners manual, service book and other related documents to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle. When the complainant demanded the same the opposite parties informed that the documents will be hand over to the complainant within 15 days. When the RC was received on 16/3/11, the complainant noticed that the date of manufacturing of the vehicle is mentioned as January 2010 instead of 2011 model. The complainant alleged that the vehicle handed over to him by the opposite parties is not Euro III 2011, but Euro II 2010. Opposite parties submit that 2011 model will be available for delivery only after March after completing the registration proceedings by the Govt.
It is true that Ext.A1 shows the month and year of manufacturing is January 2010. There is no evidence to show that whether the vehicle handed over to the complainant is of Euro II or Euro III. The complainant has not taken any steps to prove that the vehicle booked by him was for Euro III 2011 model. Complainant alleges the vehicle of Euro II 2010 model having less value than what he has paid. To show the price variation of the vehicle Euro II 2010 and Euro III 2011 model, no price list has been produced. Complainant is having a case that he has not received vehicle owner’s manual, service book and other related documents even after the 1st service. No steps has been taken to prove the same also.
In the absence of substantial evidence we are not in a position to attribute any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
In the result complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of March 2012.
Sd/-
Seena.H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of RC of Vehicle No.KL-50-A-5972
Ext.A2 – Copy of notice dated 27/4/11 issued by complainant to 2nd opposite party
Ext.A3 –Reply to notice dated 12/5/11 issued by 2nd opposite party
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Photocopy of Invoice Cum Challan
Ext.B2 – Photocopy of Extension Certificate -1 issued by Vehicles Research & Development Estt.
Ext.B3 – Photocopy of letter dated 29/9/10 issued by Transport Commissioner,
Thiruvannathapuram
Ext.B4 – Photocopy of variants of Swaraj Mazda “Smart TC III” with cargo box
Cost
No cost allowed
