By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:-
Brief of the complaint:- The complainant had desired to purchase a Santro car from opposite party's firm by raising a loan from State Bank of Travancore and enquired about the details from opposite party No.1 who is an authorized dealer of opposite party No.2. When the complainant reached with Demand Draft of SBT opposite party No.1 kept the Demand Draft with him and informed that the car will be delivered on the next day since the car is at Calicut. The complainant and her husband informed their willingness to accompany with them. But they disallowed their request and obtained Rs.2,000/- from her to fill full tank petrol in the vehicle. On 28.11.2010 the opposite party brought the vehicle to their firm but the vehicle was totally in a dilapidated condition because of rust, scratches and sedimentation on the various places of the body, such as inside the cabin and engine compartment. When it bring to the notice of the opposite party regarding lacuna they told that everything would be alright if the vehicle is washed. The complainant and her husband believed the words and had taken the vehicle to their house. The next day the complainant washed the car but the vehicle was not free from all those defects. Immediately the complainant informed the facts to the opposite party and as per their advice the complainant handed over the vehicle at their firm. On 01.12.2010 the complainant demanded for a new vehicle, but the opposite party told that they will cure the defects and give the same vehicle. But the complainant was not ready to take over the vehicle. As per the advice of opposite parties the complainant informed the matter to Regional Manager of opposite party No.1 and he told that they will solve the problem within three days but no action has been taken either by the 1st opposite party or from their head office. It is revealed that the vehicle manufactured on 04.04.2010 so it is not a new one. Hence it is prayed to replace the old defective car with a new one. To compensate Rs.2,000/- spent for filling petrol, and award Rs.75,000/- as compensation and RS.5,000/- as cost.
2. The opposite party No.1 appeared and filed their version. It is submitted that this opposite party is the Branch Manager of Apco Vehicles Pvt Ltd, Kakkavayal, Wayanad, which is one of the authorized delivery point cum service center of Hyundai Motors India Limited at Wayanad. It is admitted that the complainant had purchased a new Santro GLS LPG BS IV manufactured by Hyundai Motors India Limited. The Ex-showroom price of the vehicle was Rs.3,84,816/-. The charges towards the vehicle insurance and accessories etc come to Rs.24,154/-. The complainant produced Demand Draft at the SBT Meenangadi branch for an amount of Rs.3,92,000/-. Thereafter Rs.3,684/- was refunded to the complainant on 27.11.2010 itself as a cash discount. Besides that the charge of insurance regarding Rs.10,544/- and the charges of accessories Rs.10,110/- were also discounted from the above said total price of Rs.4,08,970/-. The temporary registration was taken on the expense of the opposite party and thereafter Rs.23,539/- given to the complainant by cash for registering the vehicle. So the complainant got the vehicle for Rs.3,64,777/-. The above vehicle is hypothecated to SBT Meenangadi branch. The complainant obtained quotation on 11.11.2010, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 27.11.2010. The demonstration vehicle or two models of the vehicle will be available at the retail outlet Wayanad. The customers who will particular to see the vehicle before purchase are at liberty to visit the nearest stockyard for their satisfaction. In this case the opposite party or any other employees had not advised the complainant that there is no need to visit the stockyard in Kozhikode. Since the complainant was not ready to come Kozhikode to take delivery of vehicle, the same was driven to Wayanad and handed over to the complainant. The temporary registration for said vehicle as per registration No. KL 11 U/TEMP/9515 was taken from RT Office Kozhikode in the name of the complainant on 27.11.2010. The vehicle is free from any kind of defects as averred in the complaint. On 30.11.2010 the complainant contacted the opposite party over telephone and requested to replace the vehicle with a I10 NEXT GEN model. There is no much difference between the price of both these vehicles. Since the vehicle was already registered in her name the opposite party expressed helplessness to the complainant. Thereafter on 01.12.2010 the complainant along with few persons came over the office of the opposite party and informed that she does not want the vehicle and demanded to replace the same. Since there was various complaints to the vehicle. There is no defects except scratched radiator assy panel frame with the key of her car done by the person who accompanied with the complainant. The vehicle manufactured on 04.04.2010. The vehicle is manufactured by Hyundai Motors India Ltd. It is not possible to give the complainant the said model for an amount of Rs.3,64,777/-. The complainant never contacted the higher officers of the opposite party and no undertaking by opposite parties. The report filed by the commissioner is utter falsehood. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence it is prayed that to dismiss the complaint.
3. The opposite party No.2 appeared and filed their version. In the version they submitted that this opposite party has delivered the car in question against the demand in to Apco Hyundai the authorized dealer in the month of May 2010 in perfect condition without any defects whatsoever. There is no defects in the said car in question as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted that all vehicle which was delivered by the opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 for retail sale was free from all defects. It is submitted that a brand new car was delivered to complainant after inspection and satisfied herself with respect to the said car. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On considering the complaint and versions the following points are to be considered:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- To prove the complainant's case the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 documents are marked. No document is marked on the side of the opposite parties. One Advocate Commissioner Shajil John inspected the vehicle on 11.12.2010 at 10 am and filed his report. Sri. S. Nasirudheen, Motor Vehicles Inspector, Wayanad, Kalpetta inspected the vehicle on 15.06.2011 at 3 pm and filed his report. Mr. Nasirudheen is examined before the Forum as CW1.
6. There is no dispute regarding sale of the vehicle to the complainant. The allegation is the vehicle in dispute is a defective one. The vehicle is purchased on 27.11.2010 and given back on 01.12.2010. We have gone through the Commissioner's reports filed by the Advocate Commissioner as well as the Expert Commissioner. We could see some defects in the Advocate Commissioner's report as well as Expert Commissioner's report. In the Expert Commissioner's report it is stated that there is 8 months duration from manufacture to delivery to the customer. The vehicle kept idle in dealers yard in this period. Generally new vehicles are kept in open space, open to rain, sun and dust. Hence the vehicle become shabby in appearance, slight corrosion is possible because now a days anti corrosive materials are used in vehicles. He further stated that it is the responsibility of the dealer to make thorough inspection to service and maintain the vehicle to regain it's physical appearance, mechanical condition before delivering to the customer. He further stated the rusty appearance near the rubber beading may be due to clogging of dirt and water. On the radiator grill a round portion of 2 cm width where painting is found scratches. Minute scratches and very feebile yellowish colour in some points of the vehicle is due to improper polishing. On going through both the commissioner's report and evidence of CW1, it is clear that there is some defects on the new vehicle purchased by the complainant. The opposite party No.1 has taken a contention in his version that some discount is given to the complainant. But no documentary evidence is adduced before us to substantiate his contention. Ext.A4 shows that the complainant is a Mahila Pradhan Agent. So we think that purchase of a new vehicle is her ambition in her life. Even though she had obtained a loan from SBT Meenangadi, and the amount entrusted with the opposite party she could not use the vehicle for the last one and half years. After obtaining full amount from the complainant non delivery of a good vehicle is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- Since the full amount of the vehicle is already given by the complainant to the opposite parties on 27.11.2010 itself. She is entitled to get a new vehicle manufactured as on 27.11.2010 or afterwards. The opposite party No.1 Naveen is the Manager of Apco Vehicles, Kakkavayal. On perusing the evidence it is found that he relieved from that office. So personally he is not liable to give the vehicle to the complainant. Apco Vehicles, Kakkavayal, Variad, Wayanad and opposite party No.2 are liable to comply the Order. The complainant is entitled to get a new Santro GLS LPG BS IV manufactured by
Hyundai Motors India Limited on 27.11.2010 or afterwards. She is also entitled to get Rs.40,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of this litigation.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 Apco Vehicles Kakkavayal, Wayanad and opposite party No.2 are directed to give a new car manufactured on 27.11.2010 or afterwards to the complainant. They are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- ( Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost of this litigation to the complainant. This Order is to be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 29th March 2012.
Date of Filing:10.12.2010.
