By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: Petitioners case in brief is as follows: As a present of petitioners wedding her father purchased a wagon R LXI EIII. The petitioner herself contacted the 2nd respondent and detailed and assured by the 2nd respondent about the above model vehicle. The 2nd respondent issued the petitioner a proforma invoice No.1793 dt. 10.3.05 stating the particulars of vehicle and Ex show room price. Petitioner specifically asked the 2nd respondent that a Wagon R Maruti vehicle manufactured in 2005 is to be provided and it is specified in the proforma invoice itself. Petitioner paid Rs.3,70,896.12 by way of cheque and the 2nd respondent issued receipt for the same. On 3.2.05 the 2nd respondent delivered the Maruti Wagon R LXI EIII petrol driven fuel efficient vehicle with Chasis No.MA3EEDBISOO 308059 Engine No.4131500 color 76G Metalic Wine Red and assured the petitioner that when ever any manufacturing defects or complaints occur they will rectify it or replace the vehicle with a new one. At that time the respondents didnt show the R.C. book or any papers connected with the manufacturing year of the vehicle. The vehicle was then registered with RTO Office, Thrissur by the 2nd respondent and received Registration book valid from 14.4.2005 to 14.4.2020 with Registration No.KL-08-AE-590. After that while checking the RC book the petitioner came to know that the year of manufacturing date of the vehicle is not 2005 but 2004. The petitioner received the R.C. book from 2nd respondent on 11.5.05, which can be seen from their records. The respondents earlier assured that she will be provided a new Wagon R LXI EIII manufactured in the year 2005. Instead of delivering vehicle manufactured in the year 2005, the respondents delivered the vehicle of 2004 model. The respondents purposefully cheated the petitioner and also committed unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint. 2. The counter of first respondent in brief is as follows: First respondent is an unnecessary party and its name to be deleted from the party array. There was no privity of contract between the purchaser and this respondent. This respondent did not make any representation to the petitioner in regard to manufacturing year. This respondent did not make any false representation in regard to the vehicle in question. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief against this opposite party. Hence dismiss. 3. The 2nd respondents counter is as follows. It is false to say that the petitioner had specifically asked for Wagon R vehicle manufactured in 2005. It is false to say that the respondents gave the petitioner the vehicle manufactured during 2004. The Wagon R model car given is manufactured during 2005. The year of manufacturing is intimated by the first respondent to the 2nd respondent by a circular. As soon as the circular was received by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent immediately contacted the petitioner and asked her to give the R.C. book so that the year of manufacturing could be corrected. But the petitioner never co-operated. Even now the respondents are ready to take steps to get the manufacturing year corrected. The circular issued by the first respondent had been given to Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram. Hence dismiss. 4. The points for consideration are: (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to replace the vehicle with a new one of the year 2005 as prayed? (2) Whether she is entitled for refund of the price? (3) Reliefs and costs 5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P6 and R1. No other evidence on either side. 6. Point No.1: According to the petitioner for giving as a present to her, in her wedding, the father purchased a Wagon R LXI EIII. The 2nd respondent is the dealer of the vehicle. The petitioner herself contacted the 2nd respondent and assured for a Wagon R of 2005 model and written that specification in the proforma invoice itself. On perusal of Ext. P1 it can be seen that 2005 model has booked. The copy of R.C. book which is marked as Ext. P4 shows that the year of manufacture is on 2004. It reveals the unfair trade practice committed by 2nd respondent. In the counter, 2nd respondent stated that the year of manufacturing is intimated by first respondent by a circular. As soon as the circular was received by 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent immediately contacted the petitioner and asked to give the R.C. to correct the year of manufacturing. The circular had been given to Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram. The copy of circular not produced. Even then this is not acceptable. Except Ext. P4, there is no other document showing the date of manufacture. In the counter of first respondent, it is stated that the date of manufacturing is 7.3.2005. But the date of delivery of vehicle is seen as on 10.3.05.. So it is unbelievable. More over 2nd respondent has no case that the petitioner demanded the vehicle of 2005 only. They admitted that they are ready to cure the defect of R.C. book and the year of manufacturing as7.3.05. Both these versions also affirm the case of petitioner. This complaint has filed in the year 2005. The first issue to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to get a new one of the year 2005. Now we are in 2008. So the replacement of 2005 model becomes infructuous. Hence the petitioner is entitled for refund of money. The vehicle was purchased on 10.3.05. From that day onwards the vehicle may be in use. New vehicles start to depreciate as soon as they are on the road. The respondents have no case that the depreciation charges to be reduced. The petitioner has not stated that because of 2004 model they are not using the vehicle. So from the price of the vehicle the depreciation charge is to be reduced. The contract is only between the petitioner and 2nd respondent. There is no manufacturing defect. Hence the 2nd respondent is only liable. 6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to return an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the petitioner as price of the vehicle after reducing the depreciation charge and also Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) paid towards the registration fee and insurance premium with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition and 6% from today till realisation for the total amount and further directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only)as cost. Comply the order within two months. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of June 2008.
