CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.185/2017
Dated this the 14th day of November 2019.
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. Hon’ble : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
Smt.Priya.S. BBL, LLB, MBA : Member
ORDER
Present: Smt.Rose Jose, Hon’ble President
This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite party to refund the price of the vehicle Rs.1,15,000/- which he had bidded in the auction conducted by the opposite party, the commission amount of Rs.2,700/- collected from him and compensation for the mental agony and other hardships suffered due to the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party in selling a different vehicle to him than the one characterized and announced by them.
The case of the petitioner is that, he had bidded a used car bearing No.KL 59A 8568 from the opposite party in auction for Rs.1,15,000/- believing the announcement made by the opposite party at the auction place and based on the details given in the Lot Number slip supplied by them that the said vehicle is a TA TA INDICA VISTA QUADRAJET. After purchase he took the vehicle to a workshop for rectifying some technical complaints and after inspection the staff of the workshop told him that the vehicle is not TATA QUADRAJET but TATA INDICA VESTA TERRATDI. The market value of VESTA TERRATDI is Rs.50,000/- lesser than TATA QUADRAJET. Since the physical appearance of both these vehicles are similar he could not identify the vehicle at the time of auction.
It is stated that immediately on identifying the mistake he approached the opposite party and informed this matter and on verification of the documents the opposite party also convinced the mistakes and told him that they will help him to sell the vehicle in auction but if the amount is less he has to bear the loss. Since this was not acceptable to him he demanded refund of the purchase price of the vehicle but they evaded saying that they can only help him for selling the vehicle in auction at their premises and they can do nothing more. In their announcement at the auction place and in the lot number slip also the opposite party had characterized the vehicle as TATA India Vista Quadrajet and only because of that he had selected and purchased the said vehicle. The sale of the TATA Terra Tdi vehicle characterizing it as TATA Quadrajet amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and that caused much mental agony and other hardships to him apart from the heavy financial loss suffered. Hence this petition seeking reliefs.
The opposite party in their version denied all the allegations of the petitioner as false and frivolous. It is contended that this petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The petitioner had participated in the auction at his own will and wish after inspecting the vehicle and satisfied with its specifications, model, make condition etc. It is stated that the vehicles are not their products and they are only arranging the auction for a commission at their yard at the requests of the owners of the vehicle and the proposed purchasers. The vehicles were put for auction at their yard by its owners in ‘as is where is condition’ and so the allegation of the petitioner that he expected that the vehicle is QUARDAJET is not true. It was also specifically advised and announced that the purchasers are supposed to purchase at their own risk and they should verify and satisfy themselves about the condition, model, and brand of the vehicle etc. before the auction.
It is further stated that, as per the information supplied by the owners they had made it very clear in the lot number slip that the vehicle is a TATA Indica Vesta Terra Tdi. The petitioner had participated in the auction fully knowing that the vehicle he is going to purchase is a TATA Indica Vesta Terra TDI and not a TATA Quadrajet as claimed. Here the petitioner has got delivery of the vehicle without any objection and started plying the vehicle also. He had also transferred the RC to his name. The allegation that he had informed the change of the vehicle to their officials is not true. He never had made such a complaint. They have not admitted the mistake or assured the petitioner to sell the vehicle in auction at their yard as alleged. The fact is that the petitioner had requested them to sell the vehicle in auction as he intended to buy a new model vehicle and so they suggested to bring and put the vehicle in auction. Since the petitioner himself had selected the vehicle, he cannot blame anybody now. If there was any change in the vehicle then he ought not to have taken delivery of the vehicle. They have no obligation in the sale or purchase of the vehicles in auction. They are only arranging a platform for the sale of the used vehicle in auction. The owner of the vehicle who sold the vehicle to the petitioner was not made a party in this petition and hence this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. There is no foul play or any unfair trade practice on their part as alleged and so they are not bound to refund the price of the vehicle to the petitioner or to compensate him in any manner. No loss or damages or any mental agony has been caused to the petitioner due to any of their act and so the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to them.
The matters to be decided are:-
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Reliefs and costs if any?
Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and the opposite party. Ext.A1 to A3, B1 and depositions of PW1 & RW1.
Point No:1-The specific case of the petitioner is that, he had participated in the auction sale conducted by the opposite party and had selected and purchased the disputed vehicle for a higher amount of Rs.1,15,000/- based only on the description given in the Lot Number Slip supplied by the opposite party before the auction and the announcement made by them that the said vehicle is a TATA INDICA VESTA QUADRAJET. But actually it was a TATA INDICA VESTA TERRA TDI and its market value is Rs.50,000/-lesser than the market value of TATA QUADRAJET. Only to make undue monitory benefit at the cost of the bidder the opposite party had knowingly characterized and announced a TERRA TDI vehicle as a Quadrajet. The petitioner produced the catalogue supplied to him by the opposite party containing the Lot Number of vehicles put for auction and its details and terms and conditions of the auction and was marked as Ext.A2.
In Ext.A2 the Lot Number of the vehicle auctioned by the petitioner is 22-A. In Column 22-A the model of the vehicle is written in bold capital letters as “2009 TATA INDICA VESTA TERRA QUADRAJET’’. But below the same column under the caption “Notes” it is written in small letters as “Vehicle is Tata Indica Vista Terra Tdi”.It is also noted that, the other words printed commonly in all other columns as “Vehicle will be released only after taking clearance, RTO related expenses to be bear by buyer”. Only in Column 22-A a specific entry regarding the model of the vehicle is seen. This shows that for attracting and misleading the bidder, the opposite party had purposely given the model of the vehicle as TATA QUADRAJET in bold capital letters at the top of the column knowing very well that the vehicle is TATA TERRA TDI. Ext.A1 is the copy of RC book of the said vehicle which shows that, the vehicle delivered to the petitioner is TATA Indica Vista Terra TDI. This type of tactics on the part of the opposite party is nothing but unfair trade practice.
Sri.Satheesan, the principal officer of the opposite party was examined as RW1. In cross he admitted that Ext.A3 is the list of vehicle put for auction containing details of the vehicles. In Ext.A3 also the vehicle is described as “TATA INDICA VISTA TERRA QUADRAJET’ . RW1 also stated that Ext.A3 is intended for the office use only(Pge 3 RW1) Here it is to be noted that in Ext.A3 even if it is intended for the office use and in Ext.A2 Lot Number Slip supplied to the petitioner, the vehicle is described as “Tata Quadrajet”. According to the petitioner the physical appearance of both these model are similar and so it cannot be easily identified. The market value of TATA Terra TDI is very less when compare to the market value of TATA Quadrajet. If the opposite party had disclosed the truth prior to the auction then he will not purchase the said vehicle. In cross examination RW1 also admitted the fact that the value of TATA TDI is lesser than TATA Quadrajet and the physical appearance of both these vehicles are similar. The petitioner was also examined as PW1. But nothing has been brought out in favour of the opposite party in the examination. Here the petitioner had auctioned the vehicle based on the details given in Ext.A2 & A3 documents. So the contentions of the opposite party in their version is not acceptable or admissible. From the evidence it is found that the opposite party had committed unfair trade practice in selling a different vehicle to the petitioner than the one characterized and announced by them and thereby caused financial loss and mental agony to the petitioner. Point No.1 found accordingly.
Point No.2:- In view of the finding in point No.1, we are of the view that this petition is to be allowed and the opposite party is liable to compensate the petitioner for his loss and sufferings.
In the result, the following order is passed.
The opposite party is ordered to pay Rs30,000/-to the petitioner as compensation along with Rs.5,000/-as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the entire amount will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of default till payment.
Dated this 14th day of November 2019
Date of filing: 08.05.2017.
SD/-MEMBER SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. The copy of RC book
A2.Catelogue supplied by the opposite party containing the Lot No. of vehicle
A3. List of vehicle put for auction.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1. List of vehicle put for auction.
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Shibulal.K.K(Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1. Satheesan, Shriram Auto Mall India Ltd, Iringath.PO, Manjakulam, Meppayur.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
