KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL 325/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 25..9..2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The Proprietor, Sitaram Motors, : APPELLANT N.H.Bye pass Road, Chandra Nagar, Palakkad. (By Adv.R.Suja) Vs. Ratheesh Kumar, : RESPONDENT S/o Vasu, Panchami, Kuttipadam, Muthalamada, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad. (By Adv.P.Praveen) JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The appellant is the opposite party in CC.124/08 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Maruti Alto LXI BS III car from the opposite party. At the time of purchase he was made to believe that the vehicle he purchased was manufactured in the year of 2008. But on getting certificate of registration he came to know that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2007. The complainant approached the opposite party several times and requested for a 2008 model car but the opposite party did not care. Hence he filed the complaint seeking for an order directing the opposite party to substitute the vehicle with a new one and also claiming a sum of Rs.90000/- as compensation for mental agony along with costs. 3. In the version filed, the opposite party/appellant has admitted the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant from the opposite party and denied the allegation regarding misrepresentation and unfair trade practice. According to them it is not practical to a dealer to sell the vehicles manufactured in the year 2008 in 2008 itself. He further contended that the product is not a perishable commodity and it has no date of expiry which mandates the same to be sold within a stipulated period and most of the vehicle sold during the 1st 5 to 6 months of an year would only be vehicles manufactured in the previous year. They further submitted that chassis number of the vehicle purchased by the complainant is within the chassis cut off number for the year 2007 published by the manufacturer and hence the same could only be registered as a 2007 model, though the vehicle was purchased in the year 2008. Thus the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of chief affidavit of both parties and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked from the side of the complainant. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked from the side of the opposite party. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. She submitted that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant not at the instigation of the opposite party but at his own choice and it is not practical to a dealer to sell 2008 model vehicle in the same year itself and as per Ext.B3, the data furnished by the Maruti Udyog Limited, it can be clearly seen that total number of vehicles remaining to be sold in State of Kerala alone as on 31.12.07 is 4300. This would show that most of the vehicles sold during the first 5 to 6 months of a year could only be the vehicle manufactured in the previous year. She has also attacked the compensation of Rs.20000/- which was ordered to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant.. According to her it is on a higher side. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part she prayed for admitting the appeal. 6. The complainant/respondent purchased the car on 29.5.08 and appellant admitted that the car was registered as 2007 model, though it is purchased in the year 2008. It is only on getting the certificate of registration the complainant came to know that the car was manufactured in the year 2007. It is noted that the appellant has no case that the complainant was made known about the year of manufacture or any amount by way of depreciation had been given to the complainant in the purchase value. It is only natural that a purchaser who intends to buy a car in 2008 will only think of buying a car of 2008 model unless he has demanded for a car of the previous year for a reduced price. The appellant/opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that the complainant had demanded a 2007 model vehicle when he came to purchase the vehicle in the year 2008. In the absence of evidence to support the case that the opposite party had offered 2007 model and the complainant had agreed to purchase the same, we are of the view that the opposite party was liable to deliver a car of 2008 model itself. It is also to be found that the market value of the vehicle manufactured in 2008 would get higher value than a 2007 model. No doubt that the year of manufacturer has got an important role in fixing the market value. 7. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.90000/- as compensation along with costs. Both parties have not adduced any evidence to show the price difference of the vehicle manufactured in the year 2007 and 2008. The Forum below has fixed a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation. We are also of the view that the said compensation is only reasonable. 8. In the circumstance and considering the monitory loss to be faced by the complainant, we find the order of the Forum below directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.20000/- along with cost of Rs.1000/- can not be said to be exorbitant. We find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps | 
