BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 1st day of August 2018
Filed on : 18-05-2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.279/2016
Between
M.V. Viswanathan, : Complainant
S/o. Velu, Maneparambil house, (By Adv. K.L. Joseph, Thevara
Maneparambil arcade, Junction, M.G. Road, Ernakulam
Ravipuram-682 015. Kochi-682 015)
And
1. Popular Hyundai Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
Vyttila, Kochi-682 019. (1st O.P. By Adv. George Cherian
Rep. by its Managing Director, Karippaparambil, Karippaparam-
bil Associates, H.B-48, Panampilly
Nagar, Cochin-682 036)
2. Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,
Kanchipuram,
Tamilnadu-602 105,
Rep.by its managing director.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant purchased a new Hyundai Verna car from the Popular Hyundai Vyttila, Ernakulam. He took delivery of the same on 26-11-2015, and it was registered as KL7-CE-9159 on 02-04-2016. On a perusal of the RC particulars, the complainant came to know that the vehicle was manufactured in January 2015 and when he had purchased the car it was 11 months old. The opposite party made the complainant to believe that the opposite parties had sold a new car to the complainant. The opposite parties had therefore cheated the complainant and played fraud on the complainant by effecting the sale of a 11 months old car as a new vehicle. The opposite parties had committed unfair and deceptive practice. When the complainant came to know about this, he contacted the opposite party airing the grievance . However, the opposite parties could not redress his grievance by replacing the old vehicle for a new one or to compensate the complainant by paying Rs. 40,000/-. The 1st opposite party told the complainant that they had already given a discount of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and they are not able to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to him by delivering 11 months old vehicle. The complainant being a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, the services provided by the opposite parties suffer from deficiency. The complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards the costs of the proceedings.
3. Notices were issued to the dealer and manufacturer of the car who were arrayed as Opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively.
4. The opposite parties appeared and filed separate versions resisting the complaint. The opposite party took a contention that there was no element of cheating and commission of fraud in the facts and circumstances of the case. The car delivered to the complainant is a brand new car received from the 2nd opposite party. The complainant inspected the vehicle before delivery, the car was in perfect condition . The car had the warranty given to the manufacturer does not commence from the date of manufacture, but it commences from the date of delivery of the vehicle. The letter dated 18-04-2016 sent by the complainant was promptly replied on 26-04-2016 stating that the 1st opposites party was allotting the car to the customers as provided by the 2nd opposite party. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant was provided with a car manufactured in the year 2015, while the purchase the car in the same year. The complainant is therefore liable to be dismissed.
5. The 2nd opposite party also took the very same contentions and added that the relation between the opposite parties is that of a principal to principal basis and not on basis of a principal and agent. The complaint is frivolous , and that the car given to the complainant was a brand new one and the complainant had filed this complaint with ulterior motives.
6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. The opposite parties Examined DW1 and Exbts. B1 and B2 were marked. Heard both sides.
7. Following issues were settled for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant had proved that there was any
deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii. Reliefs and costs
8. Issue No. i. The complainant produced 6 documents and marked them as Exbts. A1 to A6. Exbt. A1 is a notice issued by the complainant against the 1st opposite party demanding the payment of compensation. Exbt. A2 is the postal receipt for having issued Exbt. A1 by registered post. The car was registered in the name of the complainant as 2015 January car and the date of registration was 26-11-2015 as seen from Exbt. A3. On 22-04-2016 the complainant was given a reply from the customer care of the 1st opposite party stating that the opposite party had provided month scheme as well as a discount of Rs. 5,000/- and that they are sorry to inform the complainant that they are not in a position to give the compensation of R. 40,000/- demanded by the complainant. Exbt. A5 is a preliminary information sheet issued by the opposite party to the complainant calculating the amount to be given by the complainant to the 1st opposite party after various adjustments. The complainant was informed as per Exbt. A5 that Ex-showroom price of the car was Rs. 10,37,152/-. The comprehensive insurance was Rs. 32,507/- and road tax was Rs. 1,04.115/- adding the logistic charges and extended warranty charges came to Rs. 11,88,361/-. As an addition of bumper to bumper insurance coverage at Rs. 7.301- the total amount of the car came to Rs. 11,95,662/-. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deducted towards cash payment which included Rs. 5,000/- given at the time of booking the vehicle and Rs. 5,000/- towards cash discount, according to the opposite parties. After discount the total price of the car came to Rs. 11,85.662/- . It is seen from Exbt. A5 that the complainant paid Rs. 3,50,000/- in cash by himself and availed financial assistance of Rs. 8,05,662/- from elsewhere. Exbt. A6 is the order booking form which shows that the complainant give a booking amount of Rs. 5,000/- for the purchase of a pure white 2015 model Vernan 1.6 xx vehicle.
9. On going through the documents Exbts. A1 to A6, it is seen brought out in evidence that the complainant did not specify any particular month of manufacturing in respect of the vehicle sought to be purchased by him. The complainant did not produce the purchase invoice in his name. That document would have thrown some light in respect of the actual discount given to the complainant in detail. The complainant did not take out a commission to find out as to whether there was any defects in the car at the time of purchase . According to the opposite party No. 1 they had delivered the car to the complainant immediately on receipt of the same from the 2nd opposite party. Exbt. B2 agreement shows that the liability between the oppose parties are on the basis of principal to principal. The complainant has no case that the opposite parties had sold in a car which was manufactured in the previous year. The difference in the year of manufacturing may have some negative impact for the purchaser. The 'model year’ of a car is a critically important piece of information to know when ordering any spare parts or equipment for it. The 'model year’ of a vehicle is basically a snap shop of its features and equipment at a certain period of time, usually the length of a 'model year' is approximately 12 calender months, but it can vary. Body and trim panel may or may not change every single year, but there is a miriyad of mechanical parts, interior bits, sensors, software modules and more, that are updated regularly. Unless there is a need to quickly correct a problem manufacturers implement the changes and improvements usually at the beginning of a mode year . The month of manufacturing of a vehicle has significance in the matter of spare parts and accessories of a particular model year of a car.
10. However, the case of the complaint would have carried weight if he had a specific case that the dealer had slod the car in a stockyard for a long time unattended . In such cases, there would have been a probability to have some impact on the suspension level, corrosion of pain and paint oxidation. There would have been a probability of rusting, contamination in fuel, bacterial infection in the AC vent and could have also affected the quality of the tyres due to low air pressure under which it was kept for a long time unattended. In the instant case the complainant had no such case either in the pleadings or even while arguing the matter.
11. In the above circumstance, we find that the complainant did not make out a case of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Issue is found against the complainant.
12. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 1st day of August 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt.A1 : Copy of letter
A2 : Copy of postal receipt
A3 : Copy of certificate of registration
A4 : Copy of g-mail dt. 26-04-2016
A5 : Copy of preliminary Information
sheet
A6 : Order booking form
Opposite party's exhibits: :
Exbt. B1 : copy of resolution dt. 15-06-2016
B2 : Copy of dealership agreement
dt. 20-01-2009
Deposition:
PW1 : M.V. Viswanathan
DW1 : Premjith Soman
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
