Date of Filing           : 17-09-2008

                                                            Date of Order            : 16-07-2009

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                C.C.No.172/08

                                    Dated this, the 16th day of July 2009.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                                : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI                          : MEMBER

Narayanan,

S/o.Kunhambu Nair,

R/at ‘M.N. House’,                                                           } Complainant

Chaliamkodu.Po.Kalanad,

Kasragod District.

(Adv. K.Kumaran nair, Kasaragod)

M/s. K.V.R. Cars, Anangoor,

Po.Vidyanagar, Kasaragod. 671123.                      } Opposite party

(Adv.C.Mohanan, Kanhangad)

                                                                        O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            Bereft of unnecessaries the case of the complainant Narayanan is that as against his booking for a new Maruti Zen Vxl-Estilo model car in the first week of May 2008, the opposite party delivered him a 2007 model car and there by committed unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint praying for an order for the replacement of the car with a new 2008 model car  with the cost of extra fittings Rs.30,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony and hardship.

2.            According to opposite party the complainant booked the car on 26-04-08 by  payment of Rs.5000/- as advance.  The opposite party has given a reduction of Rs.21,000/- in selling price due to the age of production of vehicle. But on 30-06-08 complainant caused a lawyer notice to opposite party suppressing the knowledge of sale and age of the vehicle.  To the said lawyer notice opposite party sent a reply requesting the complainant to settle any grievance by discussion between the complainant or his lawyer with his sales manager.  But the complainant did not turn up and the complainant refused to see the officials.

3.            Complainant filed affidavit in support of his case reiterating what is stated in the complaint.  Ext.A1 the copy of RC of the vehicle Maruti Zen Vxl Estilo car bearing Reg.No.KL-14/G 9502, and  Ext.A2 the office copy of the lawyer notice is marked.  On the side of opposite party Exts B1 to B3 marked.  Both sides heard and documents perused.

4.         The complainant as PW1 in cross-examination has stated that it is not correct to say that he has not insisted for the 2008 model at the time of delivery Even if he is not insisted for a new model vehicle it doesn’t mean that the opposite party can deliver old model  vehicle.  That apart their request to settle the grievance of the complainant by discussion itself is a pointer to the fact that they delivered an old model car instead of new and thereby committed unfair trade practice.  As rightly stated by the learned counsel for the complainant Sri. Kumaran Nair the year of manufacturing and model of a car is very crucial factor in the automobile business as well as the used cars market.  Hence the opposite party is liable to make good the loss sustained to the complainant on that account in addition to the mental agony and hardships sustained to him due to the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party.

5.         The complainant had paid Rs.3,68,000/- towards the price of the vehicle.  Though the complainant prays for the replacement of the vehicle with a 2008 model the complainant has no case that the vehicle delivered to him suffer from any defects and he is still using the vehicle.  Hence the payment of compensation would suffice to redress the grievance of the complainant due to the unfair trade practice committed by opposite party.

            Therefore the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation towards the less in price  for  an old model car in the used car market due to the supply of a 2007 model car instead of a 2008 model  and also towards the loss and hardships  and mental  agony suffered  by him.  Opposite party further directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards the cost of this proceedings.  Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Failing which the said amount of Rs.50,000/- would carry interest @ 12% from the date of complaint  i.e. 17-09-08 till payment.

       Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                                           Sd/-

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. Photocopy of RC

A2.30-06-08 copy of lawyer notice

A3. 19-07-08 reply notice.

B1. Order booking form

B2. Photo copy of cash receipt

B3. Statement  of account for the period from 23-05-08 to 27-05-08 (photocopy)

PW1. Narayanan Nair

       Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                                            Sd/-

MEMB ER                                          MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

Pj/                                                                                            Forwarded by Order

                                                                                        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT