2. Shriram City Union Finance Limited,

    C/o Shriram Chits Private Limited,

    D.No.12-25-50, II Floor,

    Opp. Krishna Picture Palace,

    Kothapet, Main Road, Guntur-1.                         …opposite parties

        This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 24-03-11 in the presence of Consumer Care Centre representing on behalf of complainant and of Sri Ch. Jayaram, advocate for 1^st opposite party and of Sri D.N. Murthy, advocate for 2^nd opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a sum of Rs.29,326/- being cost of electronic vehicle, Rs.3,519/- being interest from 28-09-09 to 27-02-10, Rs.20,000/- as damages, Rs.130/- towards court fee.

2.      In brief the averments of the complaint are these:  

        The complainant purchased an Ultra Electric Marathon (charcoal grey) for a sum of Rs.29,326.92 ps under bill No.25 dated 28-09-09.   At the time of purchase only one vehicle was available and it is not in good condition having scratches and rust to several parts.   When questioned the opposite party gave tactful answers and mesmerized the complainant and delivered the Ultra Electric Marathon, a second hand vehicle.   The complainant later came to know that battery of the vehicle was a used one and showing poor performance.   The OP1 failed to rectify the defects or replace when brought to his notice on 28-10-09 and 28-12-09.   At the time of purchase the complainant paid Rs.5,500/- on 28-09-02 as down payment.   But the 1^st opposite party  failed to show the same and issued bill for Rs.26,333/- instead of Rs.20,833/-.  The 1^st opposite party obtained signature of the complainant on some forms stating that the remaining balance will be arranged under finance without disclosing the details of financier and obtained 10 blank cheques bearing Nos.39861 to 39870.  The complainant never approached OP2 for loan to the above vehicle, OP2 encashed the cheques @Rs.2464/- upto January, 2010.   The vehicle is not functioning as it has got lot of repairs and unfit to use on roads.   The complainant requested OP1 to replace the vehicle with a new one or in the alternative return the payment made by the complainant together with interest @ 24% p.a.,   Thus the opposite parties committed deficiency of service.

3.    The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is hereunder:  

        The 1^st opposite party is an authorized showroom of the company.   The complainant was advised to contact M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited for financial assistance.   The 1^st opposite party did not had any system of doing and mesmerizing the customers at the time of purchase.   The complainant was well in knowledge.   The 1^st opposite party did not obtain 10 blank instruments from the complainant and they were obtained by the OP2.   The 1^st opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.

4.    The contention of the 2nd opposite party is that it provide loan only to the purchaser and he has nothing to do with the defect of the vehicle.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.     Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of complainant. No documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties.

6.   Now the points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. To what relief?

7.    POINT No.1:-    The purchase of Ultra Electric Marathon (charcoal grey) under Ex.A-1 receipt is not disputed.   The contention of the complainant is that the vehicle purchased under Ex.A-1 is an used one.  At this stage the relevant portion in the complaint is extracted below:

                “The only vehicle which is in show room has delivered to complainant stating that there is warranty and generated the above bill through computer.   At the time of purchase the said vehicle is not in good condition and appears with scratches and rust to several parts and the ignition key also defective, loose brakes, defective mirrors and other parts appear second hand condition”.

8.     The complainant is not an illiterate person and condition of the vehicle can be easily visible.   The above recitals leads me to show that the complainant bought the only vehicle available with the showroom of the 1^st opposite party for the reasons best known to him though found scratches and rust in several parts depending upon his urgency.    Therefore the contention of the complainant about the 1^st opposite party mesmerizing him to purchase the vehicle cannot be accepted.

9.     The contention of the complainant is that an amount of Rs.5500/- paid by him was not shown in Ex.A-1 invoice.   The complainant when the amount paid by him was not deducted from the bill,  I see no reason for him to take that vehicle under Ex.A-1.   Being a literate person he can refuse to take the vehicle when the amount paid by him was not deducted in the invoice.   Therefore, the said contention of the complainant cannot be accepted as it is against the behaviour of a normal prudent man.   Ex.A-2 and A-3 revealed that the complainant got his vehicle serviced on 28-10-09 and 28-12-09.  The complainant can return the vehicle to the 1st opposite party under an acknowledgement which he failed to do so.   If the complainant purchased a vehicle after seeing it is not open to him that the vehicle was a used vehicle.  The contention of the complainant is that the vehicle is giving troubles.   The complaint was filed on 05-03-10.   Under those circumstances, directing the 1^st opposite party to repair the vehicle if it is covered by warrantee by 05-03-10 or in the alternative to get the vehicle repaired at the expenses of the complainant if the warrantee period was expired by 05-03-10 will meet the ends of justice.

10.   As regards OP2 it is only a financier which has nothing to do with the defects of the vehicle.   Ex.A-4 copy of letter dated nil along with number of instalments and its due date.  It cannot be therefore be said that the OP2 committed deficiency of service.   

11.   Under Ex.A-6 letter dated 05-02-10 the complainant asked its banker to stop payment of cheques bearing Nos.39864 to 39870.  The said letter disclosed that the complainant allowed OP2 to encash cheques till 05-02-10 though the vehicle gave him trouble soon after purchase.   It speaks a lot against the complainant.   Since OP2 is a financier, no deficiency can be attributed regard the defects of the vehicle.         In view of the afore mentioned discussions this point is answered in favour of the complainant accordingly.

12.   It is the complainant who purchased vehicle after observing it and get it serviced under Ex.A-2 and A-3.   Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to compensation under any count.

13.   POINT No.2:-      In view of the above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to repair the vehicle if it is covered by warrantee by 05-03-10 or in the alternative to get the vehicle repaired at the expenses of the complainant if the warrantee period was expired by 05-03-10.
2. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
3. Claim against OP2 is dismissed without costs.
4. The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 7th day of April, 2011.

Sd/-XXX                                           Sd/-XXX                             Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                                         MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

    DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:         Nil

                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT