Tripura

StateCommission

A/11/2016

M/S Jain Udyog - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Prasanta Paul - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. P.Rathor, Mr. N.G Nandi, Miss. T.R Shill, Mrs. D.Debnath

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

 

Case No.A.11.2016

 

1.    M/s Jain Udyog,

Gakulnagar, P.S. R.K. Pur,

           District - Gomati, Tripura,

 

2. M/s Jain Udyog,

         Arundhutinagar, P.S.: A.D. Nagar,

         District - West Tripura, Agartala, 799003.

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties

 

1. Sri Prasanta Paul,

S/o Shri Monoranjan Paul,

Matai, P.S. Belonia,

District - South Tripura.

 

Present Address:

C/o Anju Paul,

Akhaura Road, North Joynagar,

West Tripura, Agartala - 799001.

 … … … … … … … Respondent/Complainant

 

2. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited,

Regional Office East-III,

5A, 5^th Floor, above Citi Marc Shopping Mall, 724,

Peace Enclave, Ulubari,

Guwahati – 781007, Assam.

… … … … Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.3

 

Present

 

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. SobhanaDatta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

For the Appellants:      Miss Titu Rani Shil, Adv.

For the Respondent:    Mr. Basudev Chakraborty, Adv.

For the Proforma Respondent: Absent.

Date of Hearing and Delivery of Judgment: 27.01.2017.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

1. The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, M/s Jain Udyog under section 15 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 against the Judgment dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), in Case No.CC-43 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum held that the appellants would pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- within two months to the respondent no.1 for deficiency of service and also issue a corrected sale certificate.
2. As agreed by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants i.e. opposite party nos.1 & 2 and the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 i.e. complainant-petitioner, the matter is taken up for final disposal in terms of the earlier order of this Commission dated 13.01.2017.
3. Heard Miss Titu Rani Shil, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants, M/s Jain Udyog (hereinafter referred to as opposite party nos.1 & 2) as well as Mr. Basudev Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as complainant-petitioner). None appears for the proforma respondent no.02, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.  
4. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant-petitioner in his application under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleged that the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the Proforma respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.3) issued an advertisement about sale of Maruti Alto LXI CNG and in the said advertisement, the seating capacity of the aforesaid vehicle was shown as 5 (five). The complainant-petitioner being influenced by the advertisement of proforma respondent no.2 (opposite party no.3) purchased the aforesaid vehicle from the opposite party nos.1 & 2, the appellants herein, who are the Dealers of opposite party no.3, but the Dealer, the opposite party nos.1 & 2 had shown the seating capacity of the vehicle in the sale certificate as 4 (four). The complainant-petitioner took up the matter with the Dealer and also insisted for writing the seating capacity as five instead of four, but the Dealer, the opposite party no.2 refused to do so and referred the matter to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the opposite party no.3 for necessary action. Ultimately, no correction was made by the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. or by the Dealer-opposite party for which the complainant-petitioner, the respondent no.1 herein, filed the complaint petition for deficiency of service and claimed an amount of Rs.4 lacs as compensation.

5. The appellant-opposite parties filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant-petitioner. In their written statement it is stated that the seating capacity was 4 (3+1) and accordingly, the sale certificate was issued, mistake if any, it is to be corrected by the Maruti Suzuki only.
6. Before the District Forum, both the opposite party nos.1 & 2 and complainant-petitioner no.1 produced their evidence, sale certificate, partnership deed, correspondence and letters of the opposite party. Both side examined their respective witnesses. On the basis of all the evidences on record, the Ld. District Forum passed its judgment as stated (supra). Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present appellants have filed the instant appeal.
7. Miss Shil, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the judgment of Ld. District Forum has contended that the seat capacity has been identified by the Central Government Circular and being a Dealer, the opposite party nos.1 & 2 are neither in a position to increase the number of seat nor decrease the same. She has also submitted that though the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. in its advertisement regarding Maruti Alto LXI CNG car mentioned the seating capacity as 5 (five) person, but fact remains that the opposite parties mentioned in the sale certificate regarding the seat capacity as 4 (four). She has further submitted that the opposite parties have no grievance regarding the compensation of Rs.5,000/-, but the opposite parties are basically aggrieved by the order of the Ld. District Forum regarding the issuance of the sale certificate.
8. Mr. Chakraborty, Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioner i.e. the respondent no.1 herein, while supporting the impugned judgment has submitted that when Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the opposite party no.3, the manufacturer of the vehicle in question in its advertisement mentioned the seat capacity of vehicle as 5 (five) person, the Dealer, appellants have no right to reduce the same, but in the instant case, the appellants did not act as per the advertisement of the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. He also submitted that the complainant-petitioner purchased one Insurance policy through the Dealer in which the seating capacity of the vehicle was shown as 5 (five). Therefore, the complainant-petitioner is not in a position to ply the vehicle with five persons i.e. as per the seating capacity mentioned in the advertisement.
9. We have gone through the findings of the Ld. District Forum, wherein, it has been mentioned that the appellants did not include the seat of driver and being driver is a person, the seat of the driver is to be included. It has also been mentioned by the District Forum that the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. included the seat of the driver and mentioned the seating capacity as five. Thus, there was no deficiency of service of Maruti Suzuki because actually the seating capacity of the vehicle is 5 not 4. The mistake was committed by the opposite party no.1 Jain Udyog while issuing the sale certificate decreasing the seat capacity.
10. We have also gone through the advertisement issued by the opposite party no.3 i.e. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. wherein, it is specifically mentioned that the seating capacity of the vehicle is for 5 (five) persons. It is also admitted position that the opposite party no.1, the appellant herein, did never disown the said advertisement. When the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the Manufacturing Company of the vehicle mentioned in their advertisement that the seating capacity as 5 (five) person, the Dealer cannot decrease or increase the said seating capacity while issuing the sale certificate. We are fully in agreement with the Ld. District Forum that no loss or damage caused to the complainant for the sale certificate, only when the complainant-petitioner can prove that by the deficiency of service, he has suffered any loss, in that case only the Forum can pass an order of compensation. As no loss or damage caused for the sale certificate, the Ld. District Forum did not allow the claim for 4 lacs as compensation sought for by the complainant-petitioner. Complainant-petitioner did not prefer any appeal before us against the said findings. Thus, we are not expressing any opinion about such findings. Miss Shil, Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are not in a position to issue the correct sale certificate in view of the certain circular of the Government of India. According to us, neither in the advertisement in question, the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. made any reference regarding the instructions of the Government nor the appellants informed the complainant-petitioner regarding the instructions of the Government before selling the vehicle in question. Had it been mentioned by the opposite party nos.1 & 2 to the complainant-petitioner before sale of the vehicle, then the complainant-petitioner might not have purchased the vehicle in question. In view of the above there is no wrong in the impugned judgment, thus we affirm the same.

The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, the appellant nos.1 & 2, M/s Jain Udyog is at liberty to take up the matter with Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. so that the corrected sale certificate showing the seat capacity as 5 (five) can be issued as ordered by the Ld. District Forum and if the appellants take up the matter with the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. then it should act accordingly, so that the advertisement issued by can be given proper effect and the judgment of the District Forum can be complied with.

It is made clear that the awarded amount of compensation amounting to Rs.5,000/- shall be paid within two months from today and if the same has not been paid within the said time, then it will carry interest @9% per annum. Appellants shall correct the sale certificate immediately so that the complainant-petitioner should not suffer. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura