DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 29^th day of October 2019

Present: Smt.Shiny.P.R, President

          : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member                        Date of Filing: 29/05/2017

CC/86/2017

Sulaiman,

S/o.Koya,

Kelassery House,                                                      - Complainant

Thrithala,(Near Thrithala Police Station),

Pattambi Taluk,

Palakkad District – 679 534.
(By Adv.Jamal Alur)

                                                             Vs

1. The Sales Manager,                                   

    G.M.Motors,

    Sangar Nagar,

    Palakkad.

2. The Sales Manager,                                              - Opposite parties

    G.M.Motors,

    Puzhakkal, Thrissur.

3. The Sales Manager,

    G.M.Motors,

    Nettoor, Kochi - 40.

    (By Advs.C.R.Vijayakumar, Bejoy.N.V

            and V.Prejith for all opposite parties)

                                                      O R D E R

By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member  

The facts of the case are narrated in brief as follows:

          The complainant was abroad for a long time.  Utilising the amount raised from overseas, complainant purchased a Chevrolet car and      intended to utilize the same as a taxi for his livelihood.  With this objective, complainant returned from abroad and contacted the 1^st opposite party and enquired about L.S. 7 Str. Chevrolet TCDI vehicle with the 1^st opposite party who informed the complainant that the vehicle can be used as a taxi, and it has good mileage.  Since complainant was convinced about this, he booked the vehicle on 25/10/2016 for delivery from the 1^st opposite party paying  Rs.5,000/- to the 1^st opposite party.  But due to non availability of the said vehicle with the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party transferred to its Thrissur district branch and from the 2^nd opposite party its mechanical features and others were narrated to the complainant and about its rules complainant was convinced by the opposite parties that complaints of the disputed vehicle after its delivery were not reported so far.  This complainant has decided to buy the said vehicle and papers for delivering of the vehicle were given by him and on road price of the vehicle of Rs.7,56,000/- was transferred to the 2^nd opposite party.  The salesman of the 2^nd opposite party, Arun by name delivered the vehicle and complainant took over the same.  After the delivery of the said vehicle complainant got convinced that the same was widely used before its delivery and found that wear and tear has occurred         to its tyre, the complainant examined the vehicle in detail, on finding that from the body of the vehicle, the sticker of the vehicle was removed, the bumper on the front side of the vehicle got damaged due to collision, the same vehicle was also got examined by a familiar mechanic and the complainant got convinced that the said vehicle was used for test driving.  Hence the said vehicle was surrendered to the 2^nd opposite party and as per the latter’s advice also wrote to the 2^nd opposite party the damages and short comings of the vehicle at the time of delivery were convinced to the opposite parties. According to the complainant, it was also told to the complainant at the expense of the 2^nd opposite party, all the damages and short comings of the said vehicle would be rectified and made the complainant to believe the same and the complainant consented to the same as the said vehicle was to be got returned from the 2^nd opposite party.  According to the complainant on 07/11/2016 the said vehicle was effectively delivered after rectifying the existing damages and short comings.  Complainant also pleads that as per company order to this model vehicle from 2016 November a discount of Rs.1 lakh was given and the complainant asked the 2^nd opposite party to refund him Rs.1 lakh and 2^nd opposite party told the complainant refund of Rs.1 lakh from the 2^nd opposite party is possible only if order to that effect is received from the 3^rd opposite party. Complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party to get a refund of Rs.1,00,000/- but telling lame excuses the 3^rd opposite party did not refund Rs.1 lakh to the complainant.  According to the complainant he was misguided and deceived the disputed vehicle was misrepresented as a new vehicle, having run 1500 kms., the vehicle was being used for test driving bumper damaged vehicle, hiding these, the said vehicle was sold to the complainant by the opposite parties.  Also after completing repairs by the date of delivery on 07/11/2016, in the price list of the vehicle Rs.1,00,000/- discount occurred which was not given to the complainant even if the latter demanded it from the opposite parties.  Complainant also pleads that he contacted the opposite parties many times for getting refund of Rs.1 lakh, for meeting loss of Rs.2 lakh by the opposite parties by delivering the said vehicle concealing its true facts.  Thus complainant was made to return telling excuses although lawyer notice dated 9/1/2017 was sent to the opposite parties which was received on 11/1/2017 by the 1^st opposite party, on 10/1/17 by the 2^nd opposite party and on 12/1/17 by the 3^rd opposite party, to these notices no reply was sent by the opposite parties and Rs.2 lakhs compensation demanded in this notice was not paid by them.  Complainant also pleads that on the above no model vehicle RTO is taking steps for their manufacturing defects, it is understood as contended by the complainant.  Hence complainant prays to this Hon’ble Forum to order for payment of compensation of Rs.2 lakh for the sufferings and monetary losses occurred to the complainant by the acts of the opposite parties, to order for refund of discount of Rs.1 lakh in the price list of the vehicle, totaling           Rs.3 lakhs. 

          The complaint was admitted and notices were sent to the opposite parties to enter their appearance and file their versions.  In the version filed  by the 3^rd opposite party on behalf of all the opposite parties it is contended that except those expressly admitted, the rest are denied by these opposite parties.  These opposite parties admit that the complainant has contacted the 1^st opposite party and enquired with him about the use of L.S.7 STR Chevrolet TCDI vehicle as taxi, being convinced with the reply of the 1^st opposite party complainant has booked the vehicle is correct.  Rs.5,000/- is deposited with the 1^st opposite party and the said vehicle was booked with the 1^st opposite party.  Since the said vehicle was not available with the 1^st opposite party 2^nd opposite party delivered the said vehicle to the complainant after transfer to the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle are correct, but the remaining averments in the 1^st para of the complaint are denied by this opposite party.  To convince the mileage of the vehicle, no complaints after the delivery of the said vehicle were reported.  These opposite parties also deny the averment of the compliant that he has decided to purchase this vehicle being convinced by the opposite parties.  These opposite parties also deny the averments in 2^nd para of the complaint as totally false. The statements that before the delivery, the said vehicle was much used as convinced to the complainant, wear and tear occurred to its tyres, from the body sticker was removed, as convinced to the complainant, the front bumper of the vehicle was damaged due to collision, whereas the complainant’s friend mechanic examined the said vehicle and it was clear that the vehicle was being used for test driving, the said vehicle was surrendered to the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party convinced him that at his cost all damages to the vehicle would be set right, if complainant writes that the short comings of the vehicle were convinced to the complainant at the time of its delivery-these statements of the complainant are wholly untrue as contended by these opposite parties.  According to these opposite parties the prevailing damages of the said vehicle can be set right and by 07/11/2016 the said vehicle was effectively delivered to the complainant is not correct.  As per company orders, for the said model vehicle from November 2016 Rs.1 lakh discount was allowed, as per which the amount when asked from the 2^nd opposite party, he replied that only if an order from the 3^rd opposite party to this effect is obtained the said discount can be given which was informed to the complainant.  According to the opposite parties, to the complainant the said discount mentioned in the complaint, complainant is not entitled to get.  The averments that complainant was misguided, deceived and the disputed vehicle was misrepresented as a new vehicle, 1300 kms. were run by the said vehicle, the said vehicle was used for test driving, bumper damaged vehicle was sold, after repairing the damages only on 07/11/2016, the disputed vehicle was effectively delivered to the complainant, discount of Rs.1 lakh mentioned in the price list, even if demanded by the complainant, the opposite parties did not give this discount are not true.  The averments in the 5^th para of the complaint are also denied by this opposite parties.  The discount which the complainant intended did not occur to the offers at the time of the sale of the vehicle to the complainant and hence the latter is not entitled to the said discount. These opposite parties also contend that in the name of manufacturing defect there was no action from anybody.  The actual facts did not happen as mentioned by the complaint but as mentioned below.  Complainant after booking the disputed vehicle with the 1^st opposite party, since with the 1^st opposite party the said vehicle was not available it was transferred to the 2^nd opposite party, at the same time the qualities of the said vehicle were told to the complainant and made him understand, on the complainant being convinced about the said vehicle, as per transfer he contacted the 2^nd opposite party after inspecting the vehicle, being convinced possessed the said vehicle on 31/10/2016.  For taxi purpose the said vehicle was booked and for which delivery was taken and as per price list of 2016 October, complainant possessed the said vehicle.  These opposite parties further contend that the company during certain months makes offers, for the benefits of offers of 2016 November, those who take the vehicle before November 2016 are not entitled.  At the time of complainant taking the new vehicle on the front left side of the vehicle there was bent in the bumper, being convinced about the bent at that time itself that damage was repaired and set right.  Being convinced about the misalignment of the tyre, tyre was changed and after being fully convinced took delivery of the vehicle and there was no manufacturing defect to the said vehicle.  1000 kms. or 30 days period for RAC complainant should come.  The complainant for reinsurance check up (RAC) came violating the conditions, within 2 months of taking delivery of the vehicle, the use of taxi exceeded 5000 kms. and hence it came for 1^st service, at which time there was no serious damages or anomalies told by the complainant.  One year service period kms. were run by the said vehicle in 4 months.  At the time of 2^nd service also to the said vehicle no damages were reported.  Without any manufacturing defects, even now the vehicle is running in good condition, no loss has occurred to the complainant on account of the disputed vehicle as contended by these opposite parties.  According to these opposite parties, no deficiency of service has happened and there was no mechanical defect to the said vehicle, hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

          Hence these opposite parties pray to this Hon’ble Forum accepting their contentions, this complaint may be dismissed with cost to these opposite parties. 

          Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit. Opposite parties filed IA/03/2018 to cross the complainant.  Since no counter was filed by the complainant IA was allowed and complainant was cross examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked except Exts.A1 to A4 which were marked in series.  Complainant filed IA 247/18 and since no counter was filed, the IA was allowed.  Complainant filed IA 63/19 to reopen the evidence, counter filed and complainant filed notes.

The following issues arise for consideration by this Forum.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If yes, the relief and cost available to the complainant?

Issues 1 and 2 in detail

Complainant filed Exts.A1 to A7 to support his pleas before this Forum in this case.  Ext.A1 series are two copies of the lawyer notices sent to opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 demanding allowing of Rs.1 lakh discount from the price of the disputed vehicle and payment of Rs.2 lakh as compensation for the losses suffered by him.  Ext.A2 series are 3 postal receipts for sending to the opposite parties 3 lawyer notices as mentioned above.  Ext.A3 series are acknowledgement cards received from opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 which show that opposite parties have received complainant’s lawyer notices.  Ext.A4 series is the Chevrolet Enjoy diesel price list of October 2016 issued by G.E.M Motors pvt. Ltd. which shows Enjoy diesel variants, their features and specifications, their ex show room prices, insurance for private and taxi, OP Test warrants for 2 years(taxi), Chevrolet enjoy diesel price list-November 2016 issued by GEM Motors pvt. Ltd., Enjoy diesel variants, their features and specifications, their ex show room prices, insurance for private and taxi.  Ext.A5 is repair order copy issued by the 2^nd opposite party which shows receipt of repair order No, date, chassis no., engine no. and registration no. of the disputed vehicle.  Ext.A6 is invoice of disputed vehicle issued by GEM Motors pvt. Ltd., cochin dated.28/10/2016 issued to the complainant which proved that the disputed vehicle was sold by the opposite parties to the complainant in October 2016 which also shows model of the said vehicle as Chevrolet Enjoy and variant as L3 L5 7 STR TCDI, engine no., chassis no., colour and ex show room price of the vehicle as Rs.6,99,000/-.

We have closely examined the affidavits and documentary evidences produced by both the parties before this Forum and we observe that the complainant has purchased the disputed vehicle in October 2016 which is clear from Ext.A6 which shows that the disputed vehicle was sold to the complainant on 28/10/2016 for its ex show room price of Rs.6,99,000/-(Rupees Six lakhs ninety nine thousand only) by the 3^rd opposite party.  We also observe that as per complainant’s PW1 deposition before this
Forum “F\nbv¡v h­n delivery X¶Xv 31/10/2016 \mWv"" from which it is clear that the complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle on 31/10/2016.  We also understand that Rs.2 lakh compensation is claimed by the complainant in his prayer to this Hon’ble Forum for which no concrete evidence has been seen produced by him.  Also two price lists of Chevrolet Enjoy Diesel version are given, one applicable for vehicles sold in October 2016 and the other one for vehicles sold in November 2016.  We also view that since it is clear that the complainant has purchased the disputed vehicle in October 2016 and its delivery was also given to the complainant in October 2016 Rs.1 lakh discount allowed by the opposite parties for November 2016 sold vehicles cannot be given to October 2016 sold vehicles, which is the case of the complainant’s vehicle.  We also view that complainant has failed to produce concrete evidence that he has incurred Rs.2 lakh loss for which compensation is claimed from the opposite parties which is also clear from his PW1 deposition “2 e£w cq] \jvSw kw`hn¨Xnsâ ASnØm\w 5 ¥mÊv ]gb hÀj¯nepÅXmbncp¶p. AXpIqSmsX 10þ)0 amk¯n FSp¯ h­n 2þ)0 amk¯n D­m¡nbXmWv.  Cu c­v kwKXnIÄ ImWn¡p¶Xn\mbn bmsXmcp sXfnhpw t^mdw ap¼msI lmPcm¡nbn«nÃ.”

Thus we find that complainant has not been seen to have produced any concrete evidence before this Forum to support his prayer for getting Rs.2 lakh compensation for monetary loss incurred by him and getting refund of Rs.1 Lakh discount.  The result is that we decide to dismiss the complaint.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of October 2019.

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                              Shiny.P.R                                                                                

                                                                                                    President

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                        V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                                 Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 series - Two copies of the lawyer notices sent to opposite parties by complainant’s counsel.

Ext.A2 series - 3 postal receipts for sending to the opposite parties 3 lawyer notices

Ext.A3 series - Acknowledgement cards received from opposite parties 1,2 and 3received complainant’s

lawyer notices. 

Ext.A4 series - Chevrolet Enjoy diesel price list of October 2016 issued by G.E.M Motors pvt. Ltd.

Ext.A5 -  Repair order copy issued by the 2^nd opposite party  to the complainant.

Ext.A6 - Invoice of disputed vehicle issued by GEM Motors pvt. Ltd., to the complainant.

Ext.A7 – Apology letter issued by GEM Motors pvt. Ltd., to the complainant.

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite Parties

NIL

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Sulaiman

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

NIL

Cost       NIL