Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/12/246

Jilla Upabhokthru Samithi and Another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Popular Mega Motors (India) Ltd and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

                                     SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN        : PRESIDENT

        SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR    : MEMBER

                                    SRI.VIJU.V.R.                 : MEMBER

CC.NO.246/2012 (Filed on : 28/07/2012  )

ORDER DATED : 28/03/2023

COMPLAINANTS

1. Jilla Upabhokthru Samithi,

Reg.No.893/89, North Nada,

Fort.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram

Pin – 695023

Rep.by its General Secretary,

•  

2. Rejilal.R
3.  

Residing at House No.11/478,

Daiji Nivas, Maruthimala Pangode,

Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram

(By Adv.Vinod kumar.S)

565.  

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Popular Mega Motors (India) Ltd

TC 7/871, Pongumoodu,

Medical College.P.O

•  

Rep.by its Manager

2. Tata Motors Finance Ltd, Having its registered

Office at Nanavati Mahalaya, 3^rd Floor, 18-Homi,

Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001, India,

Rep.by its Managing Director

3. Tata Motor Ltd, Pune, Maharashtra

(OP1 by Adv.R.Suja Madhav)

(OP2 by Adv.N.U.Nampoothiri)

(OP3 by Advs.V.Krishna Menon & S.Reghu kumara)

                                           ORDER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                 : MEMBER

1.       The complainants have presented this complaint before this Commission under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986. The brief fact of the case is that the first complainant is a registered society has filed this complaint for and behalf of second complainant also. The second complainant booked a Light goods vehicle, TATA 207 DIEX PICKUP on December 2011with the first opposite party. The price of the vehicle was fixed as Rs.5,05,832/-(Rupees Five lakhs Five thousand eight hundred and thirty two only). At the time of purchase of above said vehicle the sales man at the first opposite party’s showroom told the second complainant that he will get the vehicle only on January 2012 and it will be the latest model of 2012. The complainant paid Rs.25,832/- (Rupees twenty five thousand eight hundred and thirty two only) as initial payment and he booked loan for Rs.4,80,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and eighty thousand only) from the second opposite party for the vehicle. As per the loan agreement the second complainant has to pay Rs.14,670/-(Rupees fourteen thousand six hundred and seventy only) per month to the second opposite party. The loan will be closed after 48 months. The vehicle was delivered from first opposite party’s showroom to the complainant on 12/01/20122 when the second complainant approached the registration authority he came to know that the vehicle was of 2011 January model. The first opposite party’s assurance was to deliver 2012 model vehicle ie the second complainant had booked the vehicle otherwise he will never choose it for his personal purpose. As per the Motor Insurance Cover note the year of manufacturing of the vehicle is only 2011. After knowing the real facts the second complainant approached the first opposite party’s showroom and the first opposite party assured him to replace it with a new 2012 model. The second complainant came to know that the market value of 2011 model vehicle was only Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and seventy five thousand only) but suppressing the real facts the opposite parties 1 to 3 gave finance for Rs.4,80,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and eighty thousand only). The second complainant purchased this vehicle for his livelihood. The complainant has sent legal notice to all the opposite parties revealing his grievances.  The first and second opposite party sent reply, but the third opposite party did not cared to sent a reply because of the grievances caused due to the opposite parties 1 to 3 the second complainant was unable to use the vehicle. He was constrained to arrange an alternative vehicle and that cost about Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) to him. When the second opposite party demanded more and more installments the second complainant surrendered the vehicle to the second opposite party on 27/04/2012. On the very same day the representative of second opposite party inspected the vehicle and prepared an inventory which shows the condition of the vehicle was very good. The second opposite party gave financial service to the second complainant so as to promote the business of first and third opposite parties. The act of opposite parties 1 to 3 amounts to unfair practice and deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

2.       The opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version. The first opposite party has averred that the complaint is not maintainable as the second complainant is not a consumer. It is admitted by the first opposite party that the second complainant has purchased TATA 207 DIEX PICKUP. The allegation that instead of giving a new model vehicle the opposite party has delivered a vehicle manufactured during the month of January 2011 is false. When the second complainant approached the first opposite party for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle the first opposite party has furnished all the details regarding the specification of the said model. The vehicle is having two variants namely EX and RX. Both this said model of the vehicle was shown to the second complainant and has opted for EX model vehicle. The second complainant expressed his willingness and interest in purchasing the vehicle even after knowing that it was manufactured in the month of January 2011. The first opposite party has also given Rs.12,000/- as special discount in addition to other discounts available to the vehicle. The special discount offered by taking note of the fact that the vehicle was manufactured for January 2011. The invoice was prepared during the month of December 2011 itself on the basis of the request made by the second complainant has he anticipated price hike during the month of January 2011. The first opposite party has produced all the possible services in almost efficient manner to the second complainant. The first opposite party has not given any assurance to replace the vehicle with a new 2012 model. The allegation with the value of 2011 January model vehicle was only Rs.3,75,000/-  is false. The second complainant has not averred the reason which prevents him from using the vehicle is not settled. The first and second complainants are not entitled to get any relief mentioned in the complaint, hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs to the first opposite party.  

3.       The second opposite party has averred that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants 1 & 2 had approached the Hon’ble Commission by suppressing material facts. It is admitted by the second opposite party that the complainant has approached the second opposite party for availing financial assistance for purchasing a vehicle. The complainant entered into a loan cum hypothecation guarantee agreement and purchased a vehicle for Rs.55832/- for which an initial amount of Rs.25832/- was paid by the second complainant and the remaining amount of Rs.4,80,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and eighty thousand only) was financed by the second opposite party. The complainant was required to pay total sum of Rs.70,41,60/-(Rupees seventy thousand four thousand one hundred and sixty only) towards the contract along with in 48 EMIs @ 14670 within a tenure from 02/03/2012 to 02/02/2016. The second opposite party is no where liable for the delay in delivery of the vehicle and the same has been agreed by the second complainant under loan agreement. The complainant is being a chronic defaulter in repaying the installments. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement the complainant has surrendered the hypothecated asset to the second opposite party. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the second opposite party. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       The third opposite party has contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants 1 & 2 had not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands. The allegation that instead of giving a new model vehicle, the first opposite party has delivered a vehicle manufactured during the month of January 2011 is false. When the second complainant had approached the first opposite party for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle the first opposite party has furnished all the details regarding the specifications of the said mobile. The vehicle was having two variants namely EX and RX. The second complainant opted for EX model vehicle. The second complainant had expressed his willingness and instead in purchasing the vehicle even after knowing that it was manufactured during the month of January 2011. In view of the fact that there was an offer from the part of the first opposite party to give an amount of Rs.12,000/- as a special discount in addition to other discounts available with a particular model vehicle. The second complainant had remitted the entire amount by fully knowing that the said vehicle was manufactured during the month of January 2011. The first opposite party had prepared the invoice during the month of December 2011 itself on the basis of request made by the second complainant as he anticipated price hike during the month of January 2011. The allegation that the second complainant came to know that it was a 2011 January model vehicle only from the registering authority is false. The allegation that the value of 2011 January model vehicle was only Rs.3,75, 000/- (Rupees three lakhs and seventy five thousand only) is incorrect. The first opposite party sold the vehicle to the second complainant by collecting the prices fixed by the third opposite party along with all the taxes, duties and other levies legally applicable for such sale. The allegation that the second complainant was unable to use the vehicle and he had to arrange for alternative vehicle, the reason which prevented the second complainant from using the same is not stated. The vehicle was in a good condition, despite the absence of any defects the second complainant is complaining that he was unable to use the said vehicle and was forced to arrange for an alternative vehicle. The third opposite party is not a party to the loan agreement between the second complainant and the second opposite party. The complainants 1 & 2 have raised the present allegation without any bonafides. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the third opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.       Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

6.       Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as PW1. He has produced seven documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P7. PW1 was cross examined by the opposite parties 1 to 3. The first opposite party has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was examined as DW1. He has produced four documents which were marked as Exts.D1 to D4 (a). DW1 was cross examined by OP3 and the complainant. The second opposite party was examined as DW2 and he has produced three documents which were marked as Exts.D5 to D7. DW2 was cross examined by the complainants. The third opposite party has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has produced one document which was marked as Ext.D8. OP3 has submitted that they have no oral evidence. The complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 filed argument notes. The allegation of the second complainant is that the first opposite party has delivered a vehicle manufactured in the year 2011 to him instead of 2012 model. It can be seen from Ext.P1 that the manufactured month and year of the vehicle was 01/2012. But Ext.P1 was objected while marking by the opposite parties 1 to 3 stating that the document is only a photocopy. The second complainant has not taken any steps to prove the same. During the cross examination of the second complainant he has deposed that 2011 model                                                          ആയിരിക്കും എന്ന് അറിഞ്ഞിട്ട് തന്നെയല്ലേ book  ചെയ്തത് (Q)   അതെ (A)  It can be also seen from Ext.D3 (a) that the year of manufacture is 2011 in which the signature of second complainant can be seen. The complainants 1 & 2 has not objected the marking of Ext.D3 (a), and also has not challenged the signature in Ext.D3 (a). There is no contra evidence to disprove Ext.D3 (a),  hence more weightage has to be given to Ext.D3 (a) rather than Ext.P1. The complainants 1 & 2 has not produced any evidence before this commission to prove that they have booked 2012 model vehicle and the first opposite party has delivered 2011 model to the second complainant.

                In the result the complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.

                   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 28^th day of March 2023.

 

                                                                                       Sd/-          

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                            Sd/-      

  PREETHA .G.NAIR: MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                               Sd/-

VIJU.V.R     : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

APPENDIX

CC.NO.246/2012

List of witness for the complainants

PW1           - Rejilal.R

 

List of Exhibits for the complainants

Ext.P1          - Copy of vehicle data sheet

Ext.P2          - Copy of Motor Insurance Cover note

Ext.P3         - Copy of legal notice

Ext.P4          - Copy of postal receipts

 Ext.P5         - Copy of letter from the customer

Ext.P6          - Copy of letter dated 23/05/2012 from Tata Motors Finance Ltd

Ext.P7          - Copy of advocate letter dated 20/06/2012

 

List of witness for the opposite parties

DW1             - Anil kumar

DW2             - Shanu

 

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties
 

Ext.D1        - Copy of Popular Mega Motors (India) Pvt Ltd

Ext.D2        - Copy of request for discount approval from Popular Mega Motors

Ext.D3          - Copy of commercial vehicle invoice from Popular Mega Motors

Ext.D3(a)      - Copy of vehicle delivery acknowledgment note

Ext.D4        - Copy of advocate letter dated 30/03/2012

Ext.D5           - Copy of loan cum hypothecation guarantee agreement

Ext.D6           - Copy of contract details from Tata Motors Finance Ltd

Ext.D7           - Copy of payment schedule from Tata Motors

Ext.D8           - Copy of Dealership agreement

 

 

 

 

                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                             PRESIDENT