Date of filing:      12.12.2018

                                                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 27.04.2023

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR., B.Sc., B.L.,                                                    .....MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                        ....MEMBER-II

 

RBT/CC. No.53/2022

THIS THURSDAY, THE 27th DAY OF APRIL 2023

(CC.No.27/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

Mr.J.Naveen Kumar, S/o.Mr.K.Jayaraj,

No.5th Block, I-F, Jain Sunderbans,

Guruswamy Road, Nolambur,Chennai -600 095.                          ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

1.M/s.Sri Maruthi Cars,

   Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr.Soundararajan,

   No.148, -AL Block, 2nd Street,

   Shanthi Colony, 11th Main Road,

   Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.

 

2.M/s.Adi Sakthi Fabricators Private Limited,

   Rep. by its Managing Directors,

   Mr.Karattadipalayam Rangnathan,

   Ramasamy & Mr.Sakthivel Ramasamy,

   L-17/L-18, Ambattur Industrial Estate,

   Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.

 

 And also at 

 

M/s.KRR Engineering Private Limited,

No.6, Vanagaram, Ambattur Road,

Melayanambakkam, Chennai 600 095.                                 .......Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                      :   M/s. A.Murali, Advocate.

Counsel for the 2nd opposite party            :   M/s.S.Balasubramaninan, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1st opposite party             :   Exparte.

                         

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.27/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.53/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 27.03.2023 in the presence of M/s. A.Murali, Advocate counsel for the complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU P.VINODH KUMAR , MEMBER-I.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and praying to direct the opposite parties  to refund a sum of Rs.3,55,000/- paid towards cost of the car along with the brokerage commission of Rs.50,000/- and RTO charges of Rs.15,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

In the month of April 2018, the complainant intended to purchase a used car and he approached the 1st Opposite Party and requested to provide a car within the budget of 3 Lakh. Accordingly the 1st opposite party recommended the 2nd opposite party's Honda Civic car with the registration number of TN-20-BS-6364, with the engine No.R18A17400917 and Chassis No.MAKFD153GAN400463. Initially, the complainant was not inclined to purchase the same. However, the 1st opposite party has pacified to purchase the said car with the assurance that he has thoroughly checked the condition of the car and assured there is no problem in the said car and also promised that he would set right the problem, if anything arises in future.  Based on the assurance, the complainant has come forward to purchase the same. On 20.04.2018, both opposite parties had signed the sale receipts and Transfer Order Form to complete the formalities before the R.T.O. Office. Accordingly on 20.04.2018, the complainant has paid the entire sum of Rs.3,55,000/- to the 1st opposite party with acknowledgement of the 2nd opposite party. Further the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the 1st opposite party for the brokerage commission and as well as for scrutiny of the said car and that apart from the R.T.O. charges for a sum of Rs.15,000/-. However, within few days of purchase, when the complainant was travelling to Nungambakkam along with his friends heard the noise at the time of steering and suddenly the said car was stopped on the middle of the Road and the same was intimated to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party had not truned up citing some reasons, hence the complainant called the Honda service authorised persons and the said service centre authorities came and set right the car and informed that the said issue was due to battery down. Further within few days of the said incident, when the complainant was travelling with his parents, the said car was suddenly stopped and again the complainant call the Honda service authorities, the authorities were temporarily set right the issue and informed that the said issue arises due to the damage in the steering assembly and further advised to bring the said car to the Honda service station for full service. Hence the complainant went to the authorised Honda service station to set right said issues. While at the time of checking the service record, the authorities have clearly advised the 2nd opposite party to change the clutch set assembly and the steering wheel rack assembly and the suspension assembly worth about Rs.1,50,000/-.  The Complainant was shocked to hear the same and immediately the complainant contacted both opposite parties about the said fault. But both opposite parties did not respond properly and hence on 05.10.2018, the complainant had issued a legal notice to the opposite parties and called upon to refund the entire amount along with the compensation for mental agony and hardships and the same was received by them and they had not complied the demand in the said notice. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed. 

Crux of the defence put forth by the 2nd opposite party:-

The 2nd opposite party filed version disputing the complainant allegations contending interalia that there is n privity of contract between complainant and the 2nd opposite party.  The 2nd opposite party sold its car only to and in favour of the 1st opposite party for which the 1st opposite party obtained the signatures of Chairman and the 2nd opposite party company‘s seal on several blank printed forms, where in the details were not filled up at the time of obtaining the signatures of the above said persons separately. It is the usual practise by the company which is undertaking in selling used cars to obtain the signatures of the owners of the cars, while purchasing the cars, there after such sellers of used cars such as the 1 opposite party used to fill up the blank printed forms. Even assuming that the documents produced by the complainant are not disclosing the fact that the 2nd opposite party sold the car to the complainant, therefore in the transaction between the complainant and the 1 opposite party will not in any way connect the 2nd opposite party with them and no liability can be put on the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party sold the said car only to one Mr.M.Soundararajan who is the proprietor of the 1 opposite party on 04-12-2017 for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- only, and not to the complainant and therefore there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party and the complainant cannot make any claim against the 2nd opposite party. The documents filed by the complainant will not in any way supporting the case of the complainant and this will not show that 2nd opposite party authorized 1 opposite party to sell the car to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party in no way liable for any loss or for any damages as alleged by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is not a necessary party to this complaint. The dispute is in between the complainant and the 1st opposite party and no case is made out against the 2nd opposite party and prays to dismiss the complaint. 

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A8. On the side of the 2nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no document was filed on their side. The 1st opposite party was called absent and set exparte on 13.09.2022 for non appearance and non filing of written version within the period of statue.

Points for consideration:

Whether the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act 2019?

Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service to the complainant has been successfully proved by him by admissible evidence?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

It is the case of the Complainant that he had purchase a used car from the 2nd Opposite Party through 1st Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.3,55,000/-. The said car developed various problems and the Opposite Parties had not taken any responsibilities to rectify the same. Even after receipt of Legal notice from the Complainant, the Opposite Parties had not rectified the defects.

To prove the case, the Complainant had deposed proof affidavit with documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A9. ExA1 is the sale receipt issued by the 2nd Opposite Party. ExA2 is the sale receipt issued by the 1st Opposite Party. ExA3 is the authorisation letter issued by the 2nd Opposite Party. ExA4 is the form of certificate of Registration. ExA5 is the service record of the car dated 26.10.2017. Ex A6 is the service record of the car date 09.08.2018. ExA7 is the service record of the car dated 19.09.2018. ExA8 is the legal notice dated 05.10.2018. Even after receipt of notice, the 1st Opposite Party had not appeared before this Commission and defends the case. Hence, the 1st Opposite Party set exparte.

Per contra, the 2nd Opposite Party contended that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party sold the said car to 1st Opposite Party and executed necessary receipts in this regard. The 2nd Opposite Party deny the averment and allegations in the complaint. The Opposite Parties had not adduced any evidence by way filing proof affidavit. It is seen from the pleadings that the complainant had purchased a used car from the 1st Opposite Party on 20.04.2018. The said car was manufactured in the year 2010. The Ex A1 and A2 are nothing but blank receipts. Hence, it is not possible to come a conclusion that the said vehicle was sold to the Complainant by the 2nd Opposite Party.

 It is partinent to mention that the Complainant had purchased the said car under resale. The person who a purchased under resale, does not come under the purview of consumer protection Act 2019. Hence, the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act,2019. This point is answered accordingly. 

Point No.2:-

It is not disputed by both the parties that the said vehicle was manufactured in the year 2010 and the Complainant is also aware of the same. The Complainant had not filed a single document to show that the Opposite Parties agreed for after sales service.  The averments and allegations of the Complainant is not acceptable one. Moreover the Complainant had not filed valid documents to support his contentions. Since the said car was purchased on resale, hence, we have come to the conclusion that the Opposite Parties had not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant. This point is answered accordingly. 

Point No.3:-

Since we have come to the conclusion that the Complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act,2019 and the Opposite Parties had not committed deficiency in service, therefore the Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed. This point is answered accordingly. 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. 

Dictated by the Member I to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member I and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th day of April 2023.

 

  Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                                          Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER I                                       PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 ............... Sale Receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party Photo copy

Ex.A2 .............. Sale Receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party Photo copy

Ex.A3 ............. Authoriation letter issued by the 2nd op. Photo copy

Ex.A4 ........... Registration Book. Photo copy

Ex.A5 ............ Service record of the car dated 26.10.2017 (Before Sale). Photo copy

Ex.A6 09.08.2018 Service record of the car dated 09.08.2018 Photo copy

Ex.A7 ................ Voice Record of the 2nd OP (C.D) Photo copy

Ex.A8 05.10.2018 Legal notice issed by the complainant to the opposite parties. Photo copy

 

List of documents filed by the 2nd opposite party:-

 

 

Nil

 

Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                      MEMBER I                                            PRESIDENT