THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 392/08 DATED 16-02-2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt. Lakshmidevi W/o Nagacharan, Residing at D.No. 2799, 3rd stage, ‘F’ Block, 4th ‘B’ Main, Dattagalli, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri. Ashwini Kumar Joshi, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Sri. Jinu Kurian, Service Manager, Toyota U Trust Certified Used Cars, Nandi Toyota Motor World Ltd. No.193 Vijayanagar, 1st Stage, Hunsur Main Road, Mysore-570017.<br /> ( Exparte)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 05-12-2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : -<br /> Date of order : 16-02-2009 <br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant in brief is that she purchased a used Santro car bearing No. KA-03MC 4401 from the first opposite party, who had represented to her that it was the single owner car accident free and there was no tampering of the meter she believed the opposite party and purchased the car for Rs.2,05,000.00 by even obtaining a loan of Rs.82,000.00 from HDFC Banking and finance Limited. That she after taking delivery of the vehicle from the opposite party immediately after few days started experiencing trouble in the vehicle, noticed tempering of speedo meter rattling of the doors and sum unusual noise in the engin of then she got the vehicle examined at an authorized dealer of Hyundai to whether the said vehicle was accident free and was free from tampering of the meter. She was informed that speedo meter has been tampered and VIN number was verified and found the vehicle had run 70,000 kilo meters by the end of December 2007. Its two doors were changed which had been repaired but the opposite party represented it as accident free and thus she has stated that the opposite parties has suppressed the facts and cheated her by selling the used car by suppressing material facts and therefore has prayed for damages of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony reimbursement of Rs.720/- which was repair charges, Rs.25,000/- for misrepresentation service charges of Rs.12,098/- for service of the vehicle after it run for 80,000 kilo meters and in all she claimed compensation of Rs.2,90,218/-.<br /> 2. The opposite parties who has been duly served with the notice of this complaint has remained absent is set exparte.<br /> 3. The complainant in the course of inquiry into the complaint has filed their affidavit evidence besides producing literature of the opposite party documents evidencing loan taking from HDFC Bank and few of their documents like insurance transfer and job cards with a copy of the legal notice she got issued on 01.10.2008.<br /> 4. The counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments. The complainant has produced receipt, insurance policy transfer certificate and job card to show that she has purchased a used Santro car from the opposite party who is said to be a dealer of used cars. The complainant has contended that the opposite party at the time of sale of this car had represented it to her that the car was accident free one has not run for long and its speedo meter is not tampered. She as further stated that within few days after it was purchased the car troubled her then she got it checked through a service agency of Hyunai company and she was informed that the vehicle had run 70,000 kilo meters by than its speedo meter was tampered two door are replaced and there was rattling in the doors and thereby contended that the opposite party has cheated her suppressed the facts and caused deficiency by further misrepresentation. But the unfortunate thing is the complainant has not produced any material or a guaranty or assurance given by the opposite party with regard to its road worthiness or regarding any problem in the vehicle. Admittedly the car is a used one therefore when ever an intended purchaser intends to purchase such a car it is for that intended purchaser to get himself or herself satisfy by getting such vehicle checked tested on road and then go for its purchase unlike in case of brand new company car the dealer of used cars will not give any guarantee or genuineness of parts and they would be selling such used cars on the basis of as it is where it is. Therefore it was for the complainant to take car of it and go for buying after she got satisfied about the condition and worth fullness of the car for the amount she was paying. In the case on hand the complainant has not produced even a scrap of paper which binds the opponent for any later problems in the vehicle.<br /> 5. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant in the arguments submitted that the opposite party is getting itself called as a trusted company for dealing in used cars but has cheated the complainant by misrepresentation and even by not issuing manual, check list, guarantee card and duplicate key. The complainant at this stage cannot contend to had not received such documents or that the opposite party has not given such documents. All that requirements could have been got met before she entered into a transaction of purchase. After having taken delivery of the vehicle and after using it for some time cannot complain against the opposite party in he having not given any guarantee or warrantee which of course nobody give to a used car. The counsel for the complainant argued that when the complainant got the vehicle checked from a service agency she came to know the defects and suppression of facts as narrated above, but the complainant has not examined the person or people of service agency to prove the suppression of facts or regarding tampering of meter and replacement of doors. Even if those things are established as the opposite party has not given any guarantee or assurance with regard to those problems the complainant cannot sue the opposite party in case if she finds any defects or shortcomings in the vehicle. Therefore in the absence of any service assured by or guaranteed by the opposite party the complainant cannot complain of deficiency in the service of the opposite party. For the reason that when there is no service promised there is no question of causing deficiency in keeping up that promise or assurance. Thus the complainant in our view has failed to prove any deficiency of the opposite party and as the result the complaint is liable to be dismissed, with the result we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to both the parties according to rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 16th February 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />