O  R D E R

SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,

          The grievance of the complainant against the Ops in brief is, that the first OP is the South Regional Controller of Hundai Company and is marketing its car.  The second OP is the marketing agent of products and the third OP is the authorized dealer. That M/s. Karnataka Turned Compartments had purchased a Hyundai Company are called Terracan from the 3^rd OP for value. Since from the date of purchase, the said car was having major problems like A.C.Compressor, Clutch plate, for the same the M/s. Karnataka Turned Compartments has sold the car in his favour. That he is also facing same problems and spend more than Rs.1,14,000=00. That he is suffering from mental agony with these problems since 4½ years, left the vehicle for repair on 4-8-2010 with the 3^rd OP, but as they did not repair it, he took back the vehicle and spent morethan Rs.4,50,000=00 towards repairs and alleging that the vehicle is defect from the beginning and got issued a legal notice on 6-10-2010 for failure of OP to repair has prayed for a direction to OP to exchange the car or to refund Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum and to award damages of Rs.1,00,000=00.

          2. This forum though had ordered notice to Ops No.2 and 3 only. OP No.1 voluntarily appeared through his advocate. Ops No.2 and 3 also have appeared through their advocate. Ops No.2 and 3 only have filed their version, the said Ops in their version contended that the complainant has not purchased the car from them and complaint is not maintainable. These Ops admitting that OP No1 is the South Regional Controller of Company denied OP No.2 is the marketing agent. Further admitting that OP No.3 is the authorized dealer of the car has denied that Karnataka Turned Compartments had purchased the car from them. Further these Ops denying their knowledge regarding problems like A.C.Compressor, Clutch plate etc. have also denied that the complainant has spent Rs.1,14,400=00 for repair and stated there was no problem in the car from the beginning. They have further contended that the complainant had approached them for running repairs and they found that A.C.Compressor had spoiled and when they told the complainant to confirm for repairs, the complainant did not confirm but took back the vehicle on 27-9-2010 and these Ops denying all other allegations of deficiency in their service have further stated that cause of action arose at Tumkur and complaint is liable to be dismissed and submitted for dismissal of the complaint.

          3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Kiran Kumar for Ops No.2 and 3 have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced Xerox copies of invoice standing in the name of Karnataka turned compartments having paid, cost of the car in question, then copy of advance sale receipt standing in his name dated 27-12-2007 with job cards under which the car was subjected to running repairs and service on many occasions. Ops have not produced any documents. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

          4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.

1)     Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have caused deficiency in their service in not attending the repair of the car?

2)     To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

5. Our findings are as under:

Point no.1: In the Negative

Point no.2: See the final Order

REASONS

          6. Answer on Point No.1:  As seen from the copy of invoice produced by the complainant, Karnataka Turned Compartments shown to had purchased this car from Advaith Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore on 22-2-2008 for Rs.20,55,296/-. But the complainant has not proved to had purchased this car from the 3^rd OP, though it is said to be the product of Hyundai Company. The complainant in the complaint has admitted to had purchased the second hand car form that Karnataka Turned Compartments.  The complaint and affidavit evidence of the complainant are silent about the year of purchase by the earlier RC owner and year, in which he purchased the second hand car.  Complainant and affidavit evidence are bereft of facts. However, we find a copy of advance sale receipt dated 22-2-2008 wherein the complainant alleged to had agreed to purchase the second hand car by paying an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- and the sale transaction was to be completed on or before 15-1-2008. It is not clear whether the transaction was completed or not if so when that transaction was completed and whether RC was transferred in the name of the complainant or not. The complainant has not produced RC of the vehicle to prove that he has become the owner of the vehicle and has authority to file this complaint against the Ops and to call himself as a consumer to present this complaint before this forum. In the absence of proof or document, that he is the owner of the car in question, he cannot maintain this complaint and therefore on that ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          7. The complainant has alleged, as if there was a compressor problem of the AC and problem in the clutch plate from the beginning of the purchase of the car. But admittedly the earlier RC owner had not complained any manufacturing defect in the vehicle to any of the Ops. Therefore the allegation of the complainant that from the beginning these problems are continued cannot be believed. The earlier RC owner admittedly used the car till the year 2008 and thereafter the complainant alleged to have taken possession of it and using the same. It is not clear, how many kilometer that vehicle had run, but it is a fact that the vehicle was on road rightly from in the year 2006 till date neither the complainant nor the earlier owner it appears had brought to the notice of the OPs about any manufacturing defect in the vehicle during warranty period. That being so, the allegations of the complainant that defects are there from the date of purchase falls short of proof. It is noticed from the Job card, the car was subjected to running repairs in due course during all these years. If the complainant found any defect or problem in the vehicle had an option to get it repaired by meeting necessary cost parts to be replaced and repair. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merits in the allegation of the complainant. The defence of the Ops that the complaint who had left the car for repair and did not confirm his consent for repair and took back the vehicle remained un-rebutted. The complainant thus has failed to prove any deficiency in the service of the OP, as such, the complaint is devoid of merits is liable to dismissed. Accordingly we answer point No.1 in the Negative and pass the following order:

O R D E R

Complaint is dismissed. No cost.