1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he had purchased vehicle Tata Indigo Manza New Aura from the opponents on 14^th November, 2011.  The complainant booked the vehicle on 31^st October, 2011.  After going through the catalogue, the complainant selected Aura model for the price of Rs.7,69,441/-.  The complainant chose Aura model for the following feature i.e.

1. Rear Demister
2. Tilt Adjustable Power Steering
3. Power Outlet in Rear Cabin

The complainant was assured by the opponents that he will get all the above features in Aura model.  The vehicle was delivered on 23^rd November, 2011.  After delivery, it was found that the important features were missing.  The complainant chose the Aura model for the abovesaid important features.  The opponents did not bother to inform that the features were degraded.  The complainant was informed only at the time of delivery and after payment of full amount.  In fact, the sales person of the opponents was also not aware about the changed features.  The complainant lodged oral protest and refused to take delivery.  After apology letter and offer of compensation of Rs.5,000/-, the complainant took delivery under protest. The opponents accepted their guilt by giving apology letter.  The complainant sent email to the opponents and also registered A.D. letter. As there is deficiency in service, the complainant has filed this complaint to replace the vehicle with abovesaid features.  He also prayed to direct the opponents to add the above features. He has also prayed for refund of the entire consideration amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.  He has prayed for compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs for mental agony and harassment. 

2)                The opponents appeared and filed written statement.  According to the O.P.No.1, the complaint is false.  It is submitted that new variants were introduced by the O.P.No.2. Such modifications are part and parcel of product evaluation process. Sometimes, features showed to prospective customers may not be available at the time of actual delivery.  Therefore, specific clause is inserted in the brochure.  The complainant booked the vehicle and specifically insisted on Jet Silver Colour of Tata Indigo Manza Q-Jet Aura New on 31^st October, 2011.  At that time, discount scheme of Rs.20,000/- plus exchange bonus of Rs.20,000/- was available.  Thereafter, in November-2011, discount was enhanced.  The complainant was not eligible for enhanced discount.  The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- booking on 31^st October, 2011 and Rs.4,83,660/- and Rs.11,781/- on 15^th November, 2011.  At the time of booking, the selected model was not available.  In the month of November-2011, the features selected by the complainant were not available in the model.  Therefore, offer was given to the complainant with the discount scheme available in the month of November-2011 and the complainant willingly accepted it without any protest.  The complainant was compensated for the features.  The complainant took delivery and issued acknowledgements. The apology letter was issued to the complainant merely as a goodwill gesture and a corporate practice of the O.P.No.1.  The said letter is not admission of any guilt. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3)                The O.P.No.2 filed written statement and repeated the contentions submitted by the O.P.No.1. 

4)      After hearing both the parties and after going through the record following points arise for our consideration

POINTS

REASONS

5) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute that the complainant booked Tata Indigo Manza New Aura model on 31^st October, 2011 and paid Rs.50,000/- towards booking in advance. Admittedly, the complainant was interested only in this model.  This model was not available therefore he waited for it.  The delivery of the vehicle was given to the complainant after full payment of consideration amount on 15^th November, 2011.  According to the complainant, till the payment of full consideration amount he was not informed about the changed features.  He came to know about it only at the time of taking delivery after payment of full consideration amount.  As the full consideration amount was paid, he took the delivery under protest.  Therefore, the opponents issued apology letter.  The apology letter is admitted by the opponents.  On perusal of it, the opponents has admitted that the same features have been discontinued by the company in new model.  According to the opponents, the complainant was aware about the changed features and he willingly took the delivery without any protest.  This defence is inconsistent to the apology letter given by the opponents.  If the delivery was taken willingly and there was no protest, then there was no question of issuing apology letter.  Admittedly, the complainant booked the particular model.  Said model was not available therefore he waited for it.  It shows that he was insisting the same model only.  On this background, it was necessary for the opponents to inform the complainant that the said model is discontinued by the company.  The opponents can not insist the consumer to purchase any model.  It is the choice of the consumer to purchase the model of his choice.  In the instant complaint, the complainant was insisting for particular model but the delivery was not given of the same model.  In view of the apology letter issued by the opponents, the defence taken by the opponent can not be accepted.  It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the opponents that the discount offer available in the month of November-2011 was also given to the complainant to compensate him. The complainant was insisting for particular model therefore merely giving some discount will not satisfy his choice.

6)                The learned advocate for the opponent has drawn our attention to the clause in brochure showing the change in features.  Merely printing some conditions on brochure is not sufficient to compel the consumer to purchase the model against his choice.  When the complainant had booked particular model, it was necessary for the opponents either to provide the same model or to refund his entire booking amount.  The complainant has specifically stated he was not informed about the change of features till the time of delivery.  There is nothing on record to show that the complainant was informed about the change in features.  This amounts to unfair trade practice. Thus, there is clear deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the compensation.

7)                In the complaint, the complainant has prayed for replacement of the vehicle. But, during course of the argument, the complainant has fairly conceded that replacement of vehicle is not possible as he is using it since last two and half years.  Addition of features is also not possible as it may create technical problems.  Therefore, he has requested for compensation. The request of the complainant appears to be reasonable.  The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs.  He has submitted that he is claiming compensation for the features which were not supplied to him and also for his mental harassment.  We think compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs is towards higher side.  Awarding of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- will suffice the purpose.  Besides this, the complainant is also entitled for cost of the proceeding of Rs.10,000/-.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

O R D E R

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. The Opponents are directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) to the complainant towards compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of complaint i.e. from 6^th January, 2012 till its realization.
3. The Opponents are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant towards the cost of this proceeding.
4. The order under clause No.1 & 2 shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
5. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced

Dated 5^th May, 2014