PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2012
Filed on : 29/06/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.341/2011
Between
T.V. Vincent, : Complainant
Thenayan house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph
Sough Vellarapilly P.O., Court road, Muvattupuzha)
Palace road,
Ernakulam-683 580.
And
M/s. R.F. Motors (P) Ltd., : Opposite party
Skyline Gateway Apartments, (By Adv. Anil S. Raj, Panthiyil
Pathadippalam, Edappally, Warriam road, Kochi-682 016)
Kochi-682 033.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant approached the opposite party’s branch at Areekal Junction, Karukutty with an intention to purchase a Tata Indigo Car. Mr. Sijo John who was the Manager of the opposite party and Mr. Jithin P. Menon who was the sales executive of the opposite party were present there. They assured to give a brand new Indigo CLS White Car. Accordingly order was placed on 11-03-2011 by paying Rs. 2,000/- towards advance. They made special offers including a gold coin and seat cover as well. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 09-04-2011 by the opposite lparty after collecting the price Rs. 5,05,933/-. Instead of white car, they delivered a red car. The gold coin and seat cover offered were not given. Thereafter the vehicle was registered and on receipt of the certificate of registration, the complainant came to know that the vehicle delivered to him was a 2010 model instead of a brand new vehicle. The opposite party purposefully delivered an old car by falsely representing it as a brand new car. The matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party and they informed that the manufacturing date was mistakenly written as December, 2010 by the authorities and it would be corrected by them. But in spite of repeated requests, nothing has been done so far. The supply of a December 2010 model car by falsely representing it as a brand new car amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It is also pertinent to note that the vehicle was booked on 11-03-2011. The market value of a 2010 model indigo car is only around Rs. 4,00,000/-. Due to the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party, the complainant is entitled For Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation from the; opposite party with interest. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:
The complainant purchased a brand new car from the opposite party. The very scheme that was available during the time of booking was a cash discount of Rs. 5,000/-. The opposite party provided with a music system with speaker worth Rs. 4,000/- sun film worth Rs. 600/-, mud flap etc. The opposite party never offered a gold coin and seat cover to the complainant. The price of the vehicle was Rs. 5,10,933 not Rs. 4 lakhs as claimed by the complainant. At the time of delivery the complainant was aware that the vehicle was a 2010 model. Cars manufactured in 31st December will naturally reach the dealer for sale only by February/March. The complainant did not specifically insist a 2011 model but preferred to take delivery of the model available with the opposite party. The complainant preferred this complaint after benefiting from discount and offers provided by the opposite party complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1, Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B6 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the opposite party with costs of the proceedings or not?
5. Ext. A1 order booking form dated 11-03-2011 goes to show that the complainant booked a car with the opposite party by paying Rs. 2,000/-. Admittedly the opposite party delivered the car on 19-04-2011. Exts. A3 registration certificate of the car would show that the year of manufacturing is 2010. Nothing is on record to show that either the complainant booked a car manufactured in 2011 or the opposite party offered a car manufactured in 2011. However since the complainant booked a car in March 2011 naturally the opposite party is contractually liable to deliver a car manufactured in 2011. It can not be held that the opposite party has suppressed the year of manufacture at the time of sale especially the same finds a place in Ext. B3 sale certificate.
6. The counsel for the complainant relied on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Dada Motors Ltd Vs. Suresh Kumar. 1(2012) CPJ 516 (NC) The Hon’ble Commission held that the dealer deceived the consumer by delivering a 2004 model car instead of 2005 model. In that case the Hon’ble Commission ordered to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. One lakh to the complainant.
7. Neither is there anything to show why the complainant accepted the same without any protest. His only fear seems to be that the year of manufacture which calls for 12 months the worst and one month or less by the best would depreciate his value of resale of the same. From 21 says only the month and year of the manufacture, the date is never mentioned. So the apprehension of the complaint is only 1/12th of this actual predicament if it may be called so. Usually vehicles bought during the 1st quarter of any year usually has this problem for reasons above sated. So if the reason the complaint be as it may though not substantiated has put the consumer ill at ease. So not having proved as record that neither has the complainant demanded nor has the opposite party accepted such a course, the compensation looms large so we fix it at Rs. 25,000/- is not to order replacement of the old car.
8. Neither is there any evidence as to the offer or acceptance of a gold coin and a seat cover that point too is dismissed. There is nothing in evidence before us to substantiate the complainant’s plea that an excess amount was levied from him on that ground that point too is dismissed.
9.. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant for the reasons stated above.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 series : Copy of order booking forms
A2 : Copy of tax invoice
A3 : Copy of certificate of registration
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of consumer scheme
1/4/2011 to 31/4/2011
B2 : Copy of Offer cum Finance
& VAS Report.
B3 : Copy of sale certificate
B4 : Copy of tax invoice
B5 : Price list as on 4th April 2011
B6 : Price List as on
Deposition :
PW1 : T.V. Vincent,
DW1 : C. Rakesh
