KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 375/2009 JUDGMENT DATED. 24/05/2010 PRESENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER N. Premarajan, S/o Gopalan, Padma Nivas, Uruvachal.P.O, Mattannur, Thalassery Taluk, : APPELLANT Kannur Dist. Presently residing at- Mattayil House, Kadambari Road, Kanul.P.O, Taliparamba Taluk, Kannur Dist. (By Adv:Sri.Narayan.R) Vs. The Manaer, Sakthi Automobiles, : RESPONDENT Thana Road, Kannur-2. (By Adv:Sri.S.Reghukumar) JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is against the dismissal of the complaint in OP:49/05 by the CDRF, Kannur that the present appeal is filed by the complainant calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had purchased a Tata Mobile Pick up Mini Lorry from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.32,310/- during the month of January 2005. It is his case that the opposite party had assured to deliver him a mini lorry of 2005 model itself and when he took delivery of the vehicle it was found that the vehicle was of 2004 model. It is the further case of the complainant that on seeing the odometer of the vehicle, it was found that the vehicle had covered a distance of 4381 Kms. Alleging deficiency of service in delivering an old and used vehicle. the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages on different heads. 3. The opposite party in his version contended that the complainant had approached the opposite party for getting a vehicle (Tata Mobile Pick Up Mini Lorry) during the month of January and the complainant himself had selected the particular vehicle which was a 2004 model. The documents given to the complainant would also indicate that the vehicle was manufactured in June 2004 and the complainant himself was convinced of these facts. It is also the case of the opposite party that the complainant himself had executed the document before the transport authority while registering the vehicle and if he had any objection regarding the model he could have rejected the vehicle and obtain the money back. The opposite party further submitted that the distance shown in the vehicle was the distance covered by the vehicle during its transportation and there was having wrong in showing the reading as 4381.Kms. Contending that the allegations of the complainant are false and vexatious the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. The Senior Sales Executive of the Sakthi Automobiles was examined as DW1. The Forum below passed the impugned order, finding that the complainant had failed to prove his case before the Forum that the opposite party had sold a used and old vehicle to the complainant. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is without any appreciation of the facts and circumstance of the case. It is his very case that the Forum below ought to have allowed the complaint as the complainant had adduced evidence in support of his case and the required documents were produced by him which were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. He has submitted before us that the complainant had booked the vehicle in January 2005 on the strong assurance of the opposite party that the vehicle that would be delivered to him would be of a 2005 model itself and if he wanted the 2004 model, he could have bought the vehicle much earlier. He has also invited our attention to the fact that the vehicle was having the sticker of M/s Aravind Motors and it is his very case that the opposite party has bought the vehicle from M/s Aravind Motors and sold the same to the complainant. The further case of the appellant is that the odometer reading was 4381 Kms at the time of delivery which would indicate that the vehicle had run that much distance and it would give an impression that the vehicle was a used vehicle. Thus contending for the position that opposite party had committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the learned counsel for the appellant sought for allowing the complaint in toto. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum. He has submitted before us that the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the vehicle was bought from M/s Aravind Motors. He submitted before us that the sticker shown in the vehicle was definitely belonging to M/s Aravind Motors. But the same was not the indication that the vehicle was bought from M/s Aravind Motors. He has further submitted that M/s Aravind Motors are the transporters of the opposite party and as soon as the vehicle is being transported through the said Aravind Motors they would affix a sticker. It is his further contention that the complainant has been carried away by seeing the sticker in the vehicle. The learned counsel has also submitted that the opposite party had not given any assurance to the complainant that a 2005 model vehicle would be given to him at the time of booking. He invited our attention to Ext.A1 to A3 and submitted that nowhere in the booking form the opposite party had assured to give a 2005 model and 2005 model vehicle would be available only from the month of March or April and in the instant case the vehicle was delivered on 1/2/2005 clearly stating that the vehicle was a model of 2004. Again inviting our attention to Ext.A3 he submitted before us that the vehicle was registered by the complainant himself and the sale letter given to him marked as Ext.A2, was clear that the month and year of the vehicle was June 2004. Thus the learned counsel argued before us that the Forum below has passed the order after properly appreciating all the evidence before it and in such a circumstance the appeal is also liable to be dismissed with cost. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also on perusing the records we find that the complainant was given delivery of the vehicle on 1/2/2005 and the sale letter would show that it was a 2004 model. It is also seen that the complainant himself has given the papers to the registering authority and the registering authority has registered the vehicle as KL-13-M-5839. The month and year of manufacture is shown as 6/04. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the opposite party had assured him for the delivery of 2004 model itself, we do not find any supporting material to show that the opposite party had given him any such assurance. The learned counsel for the respondent had argued that it was fully knowing that the vehicle was of 2004 model that the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle. We find that the case of the respondent is more probable as the complainant has taken delivery without any demur. But the case of the complainant/appellant that the vehicle given to him had run a distance of 4381 Kms at the time of delivery has some force. The opposite party would state that M/s Aravind Motors was the transporter of the opposite party and if that be so we are at a loss to understand how the vehicle had run 4381 Kms at the time of delivery. The opposite party had not tendered any evidence to show that the vehicle was run from such and such place to such and such place convincing 4381 Kms. We do agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that there was some unfairness played by the opposite party in the matter of distance covered by the vehicle which amounts to deficiency of service. In the said facts and circumstances we find that the opposite party is liable to pay some compensation to the complainant for not explaining how the vehicle run 4381 kilometers. The complainant has prayed for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under various heads. It is noted that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he has suffered any loss or agony for awarding such a huge amount as compensation. But in order to improve the quality of the service provider we find that an award of some amount towards compensation will only be justified. The complainant was unnecessarily dragged before the Forum and before this commission to get his grievance redressed. We find that a sum of rs.4000/- as compensation Rs.2000/- as costs for the proceedings through out will be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the result the order dated:17/6/2009 in OP:49/05 of the CDRF, Kannur is set aside. The appeal is allowed in part, thereby the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VL. | 
