KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.47 /10 JUDGMENT DATED 9.7.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER C.K.Mohan, Swapna Sadan Main Road, -- APPELLANT Koduvayoor, Palakkad. (By Adv.K.Dhanajayan) Vs. M/s.Sitaram Motors, N.H.Bye Pass Road, -- RESPONDENT Chandranagar, Palakkad. (By Adv.R.Suja) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant was the complainant and respondent was the opposite party in CC.150/07 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in effecting sale of a Maruthi Wagon R vehicle to the complainant in the month of March 2007. The definite case of the complainant was that he was made to believe that the car he purchased was manufactured in the year 2007. But, when he obtained the certificate of registration of the vehicle, it was found that the manufacturing year of the vehicle is 2006. So, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.91,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the complainant was fully aware of the fact that he purchased a vehicle which was manufactured in the year 2006 and that after fully understanding the fact regarding the year of manufacture, he purchased the vehicle from the opposite party in the month of March 2007. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below, Exts.A1 to A5 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite party. An advocate commissioner was deputed to submit report on inspection of the vehicle. The advocate commissioner submitted C1 commission report. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 24th October 2009 dismissing the complaint in OP.150/07. Hence the present appeal. 3. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant /complainant much relied on A1 invoice dated 27.3.07, A3 certificate of insurance issued on 29th March 2007 and also A2 certificate of registration with respect to the vehicle purchased by the complainant from the opposite party and argued for the position that the opposite party/ Sitaram Motors suppressed the material fact regarding the manufacturing year of the vehicle; that the appellant/complainant was made to believe that the year of manufacture of the vehicle is 2007. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aide the impugned order passed before the Forum and to allow the complaint in CC.150/07. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. She much relied on C1 commission report and argued for the position that the year of manufacture of the vehicle could be detected from the LPG filling tank where the year of manufacture was engraved as 2006. She also relied on A2 certificate of registration evidencing the sale of the vehicle which was manufactured in the year 2006. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant purchased Maruthi Wagon R LX car on 29.3.07. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant booked the said vehicle on 27.3.07 and he took delivery of the same on 29.3.07. Ext.A1 is the invoice issued by the respondent/opposite party dealer. Unfortunately there is no mention in A1 invoice regarding the year of manufacture of the vehicle. But it is crystal clear that the appellant/complainant purchased the vehicle on 29.3.07 by making a payment of Rs.3,57,893/-. It is to be borne in mind that on the very same day ie; 29.3.07 the appellant/complainant being the purchaser of the vehicle was served with policy of Insurance. Ext.A3 is the aforesaid Insurance policy issued by the Maruthi Insurance through New India Assurance Company Ltd. In A3 policy of Insurance the year of manufacture of the vehicle is noted as 2007. No explanation is forthcoming from the side of the respondent/opposite party for stating the year of manufacture of the vehicle in the policy as 2007. This is a very strong circumstance that would give an inference that the appellant/complainant purchased the said vehicle on the bonafide belief and understanding that he has purchased the vehicle which was manufactured in the year 2007. 5. Ext. A2 is the certificate of registration of the said vehicle. It is to be noticed that the certificate of registration will be served only after few days. In the present case, the appellant/complainant got the registration certificate of the vehicle by stating the year of manufacture of the vehicle as 2006. It is only on getting the said registration certificate on 11.4.2007 the complainant got the information that he purchased the vehicle which was manufactured in the year 2006. So, it can very safely be concluded that the appellant/complainant purchased the said vehicle with the bonafide belief and understanding that he has purchased 2006 model vehicle. The respondent/opposite party misled the appellant/complainant by effecting sale of a 2006 model vehicle. 6. The Forum below (CDRF, Palakkad) much relied on C1 commission report wherein it is reported that the LPG filling tank provided for the vehicle would show that the year of manufacture as 2006. It is to be noted that there is no engraving or engrossing to the effect that the year of manufacture of the vehicle as 2006. But it is only shown in the LPG tank with ID.No.D1177 and the date of installation is shown as 17.10.2006 MINDA IMPCO. It would give a clear indication that the LPG installation was on 17.10.2006. It is too much on the part of the Forum below in inferring the year of manufacture of the vehicle as 2006. So, C1 commission report will not improve the case of the respondent/opposite party. The Forum below cannot be justified in relying on the aforesaid engraving or engrossing made on the LPG installation stating the date of installation as 17.10.06. We have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The materials on record would show that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent/opposite party in effecting sale of the vehicle covered by A1 invoice to the appellant/complainant. 7. There can be no doubt about the fact that the price of the vehicle manufactured in the year 2006will be lesser than that of a vehicle manufactured in the year 2007. It is the common knowledge that price of the vehicle will also depend upon the year of manufacture. It is true that the price of a vehicle will also depend upon may other factors such as the total distance covered by the vehicle, the proper maintenance of the vehicle and also the condition of the vehicle. No doubt that the year of manufacture has got an important role in fixing the market value of the vehicle. There can be no doubt that the appellant/complainant suffered financial loss on account of the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent/opposite party. 8. The complainant claimed a total of Rs.91,000/- by way of compensation. In addition to another sum of Rs.25,000/- as general compensation. The complainant claimed huge amount by way of damages or compensation. It is to be noted that both the appellant/complainant and respondent/opposite party failed to adduce any evidence to show the price difference of the vehicles manufactured in the year 2006 and 2007. So, some guess work is to be done in fixing the compensation. No doubt that there will be an element of guesswork in fixing the compensation. So, this Commission is of the view that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of Justice. The aforesaid compensation is sufficient to compensate the loss suffered by the appellant/complainant. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24th October 2009 passed by CDRF, Palakkad in CC150/07 is set aside. The complaint therein is allowed directing the respondent/opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant/complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent/opposite party. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out. The respondent/ opposite party is directed to pay the aforesaid compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant/complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment, failing which the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint in CC.150/07. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER s/L | 
