BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 1608/2010
Date of Order : 29/02/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 457/2010
Between
Eldhose Varghese, | :: | Complainant |
Parekattil (H), Kuthukuzhy. P.O., Kothamangalam. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
M/s. Poomkudy Force, | :: | Opposite Party |
Poomkudy House, N.H. 47, Edappally, Kochi – 682 024. |
| (By Adv. George Cherian, Karippaparambil Associates Advocates, H.B. 48, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin - 36) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. Shortly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :
The complainant purchased a Traveller Mini Bus on 04-01-2010 from the opposite party for Rs. 9,38,567/- for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. At the time of purchase, the opposite party falsely represented that the vehicle is a brand new 2010 model vehicle. On believing the said representation, only the vehicle was purchased by the complainant. Thereafter, when the certificate of registration was received, the complainant came to know that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2009. The opposite party had shown the manufacturing date as January 2010 in the sale certificate/Form 21 submitted by them before the registering authority. They have delivered 2009 model vehicle to the complainant by making false representation that the vehicle is a 2010 model one. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Though the matter was taken up with the opposite party nothing was done by them to redress the grievance of the complainant. The market price of 2009 model vehicle is less by Rs. 94,000/- than the price collected from the complainant. So, he had suffered a loss of Rs. 94,000/- due to the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party by delivering a 2009 model vehicle as a 2010 model vehicle. The opposite party is liable to pay the said amount together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party :
The year of manufacturing of the vehicle determined by the manufacturer of the vehicle by giving a cut off chassis number and the same is intimated to the Transport Commissioners of each State in India. The minimum cut off chassis number of Tempo Traveller for the year July 2009 to June 2010 is MC1E4CMA2AP002240. Whereas the chassis number of complainant's vehicle is MC1E4CMA2AP002030. The tenth digit in the chassis number denotes the year of manufacture. When the tenth digit in the chassis number is shown as '9', it is manufactured in the year 2009. When the 10th digit in the chassis number is shown as 'A', it is manufactured in the year 2010. So, the opposite party had correctly issued sale certificate dated 04-01-2010 showing the year of manufacture as 2010. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the complainant. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are :-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 94,000/- from the opposite party?
Whether the opposite party is liable to pay the costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. :- Ext. A2 sale certificate goes to show the month and year of the manufacture of the vehicle as January 2010. Ext. A1 R.C. Book would show the year of manufacturer as 2009. The opposite party maintains that they are ready to correct the date of manufacture in the R.C. Book as 2010 instead of 2009 free of cost provided the complainant submits the necessary application for the same. The complainant also agreed to the same. Since the complainant is satisfied with the offer of the opposite party, no further discussion on this point is not at all warranted.
6. Point No. ii. :- The opposite party failed to take steps in time to get the R.C. Book corrected which culminated in the complaint to have had to unnecessary litigation and mental agony and necessarily litigation costs which could have altogether have been avoided were which the opposite party had failed. We fix the litigation costs at Rs. 5,000/-.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :
It is upto the opposite party to rectify the year of manufacture in the R.C. Book of the complainant correctly, free of cost.
The complainant is directed to co-operate with the same.
The opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 5,000/- by way of costs for the reasons stated above.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February 2012.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of certificate of registration |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of sale certificate |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of service circular dt. 21-04-2009 |
“ B2 | :: | Copy of sale certificate |
“ B3 | :: | Visiting card |
“ B4 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 22-03-2010 |
“ B5 | :: | Certificate dt. October 2010 |
“ B6 | :: | Copy of the tax invoice dt. 31-07-2011 |
Depositions :- |
|
|
PW1 | :: | P.V. Eldho – complainant |
DW1 | :: | Sivasandaran. K.G. - Power of attorney holder of the op.pty |
=========
