Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/24/2016

Ajay Lohia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sky Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Bhagat Singh

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No-24/2016

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

 

Ajay Lohia

S/O-Shyam Sundar Lohia

R/o-Marwaripada, Meher Gali, PS-Town,

Dist:- Sambalpur, Odisha.………….Complainant

Vrs.

1. SKY Automobiles ,

Plot No. 136/1103, Kathagada, Near Assam Oil,

N.H.42, Dhenkanal, Ps/Dist-Dhenkanal.

2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited,

Plot No.1, Phase III A, Gurgaon, Haryana.

3. Sundaram Finance Ltd.

Near Tatanagar Service Station, Ainthapali,

Ps-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur...….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                  :-Sri. B.K.Singh Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.No.1                         :- None
3. For the O.P.No. 2                        :-Sri B.K.Panda,Advocate & Associates.
4. For the O.P. No.3                        :-Sri. A.K.Sahoo, Advocate & Associates.

 

DATE OF HEARING :05.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :10.08.2022

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant booked one Maruti EECO-5 STR vehicle with the O.P. No.1, paid Rs. 5000/- vide receipt No. 1126 of 18.01.2016 and financed the vehicle from O.P. No.3 an amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- with Rs. 9400/- per EMI. Rs. 88,000/- down payment was made including fees for registration, certificate charges, sale certificate, pollution certificate, tax services etc. vide receipt No.1140 dated 22.01.2016. The O.P. No.1 delivered the vehicle. The documents were provided on 03.02.2016 by the O.P. No.1.

On 15.02.2016 when went for free service in Maruti Service centre, Jharsuguda came to know that earlier two numbers of free services have been completed till 13.12.2015 at Maruti Service Centre, Siddhi Vinayak Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., Bhadurgaon. Examined the engine number and chasis number and found the vehicle has run 4657 Kms till 13.12.2015. The matter was reported to the O.Ps. After re-colouring, old vehicle has been delivered. The O.P. No.1 & 2 remained silent. The O.P. No.3 was requested to cancel the finance to stop EMI. The O.P. No.1 & 2 have practised unfair trade practice and liable for compensation.

2. The O.P. No.2 after appearance in its version submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer of the O.P. No.2. Under the dealership agreement the O.P. No.1 sells the vehicle. The dealership agreement is based on Principal to Principal agreement. The O.P. no.2 is not responsible for any act of omission or commission of the dealer. There is no deficiency on the part of O.P. No.2. The O.P. no.1 sold the vehicle to Complainant on 22.01.2016 and the vehicle was duly servised by Odyssey Motors, Ainthapali on 13.07.2016(free Service), 03.08.2016(free Service), 17.11.2016(Paid Service). The Complainant has not raised any objection till 26.04.2018 service. The O.P. No.2 not denied the probability of inadvertent human error by the dealer’s official. The Complainant has never complained to the O.P. no.2. There is no any specific allegation against O.P. No.2 and there is no any unfair trade practice.
3. The O.P. No.3 in its version submitted that the answering O.P. is not a necessary party and complaint is not maintainable. The O.P. granted a loan of Rs. 2,85,000/- to the complainant. Repayment was scheduled Rs. 9400/- x 34 installments from 25.01.2016 to 17.08.2018. The sanctioned amount disbursed to O.P. no.1 and the Complainant took delivery of possession of the vehicle. The O.P. No.3 denied its liability in anyway.
4. Perused the documents filed by the parties and the following issues are framed:
103606587.  

1. Whether the O.P. No.1 & 2 sold an old vehicle to the Complainant giving impression that the vehicle is a new one?
2. Is there any deficiency on the part of the O.Ps?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1  Whether the O.P. No.1 & 2 sold an old vehicle to the Complainant giving impression that the vehicle is a new one?

The Complainant purchased the EECO-5 STR (White Colour) Maruti Vehicle from the O.P. No.1, paid booking charges of Rs. 5000/- vide receipt No. 1126 dated 18.01.2016. The Complainant availed loan amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- and paid Rs. 88,000/- to-wards registration charges, sale certificate, pollution certificate, taxes etc. The Engine No. of the vehicles is G12BN 391843 and chasis No. MA3ERLF1S00415111. The O.P. No.3 is only a proforma opposite party.

The vehicle history shows that prior to the date of purchase M/S Siddhi Vinayak Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., Bhadurgarh made servicing of the vehicle on 13.12.2015 vide 2no free service and mechanic was Amit Kumar and the vehicle was sold by 4P01 code dealer. The date of purchase of the complainant and delivery was 22.01.2016. Although the vehicle is manufacturing July 2015 till the date of sale to Complainant, the mileage covered was 4567 KMs and two servicing have been made. In the Tax/vehicle & charges invoice dated 22.01.2016 the dealer code is 4P01 M/S Sky Automobiles, Bhanapur Cuttack. This proves that an old vehicle has been sold to the Complainant and it brought dissatisfaction in the mind of the Complainant.

After vehicle is sold as a manufacture the O.P. No.2 is liable. In the instant case the incident is purely in between the Complainant and O.P. No.1

Accordingly, issue is answered against the O.P. No.1. Till 15.02.2016 the Complainant was under the impression that the vehicle is a new one.

Issue No.2 Is there any deficiency on the part of the O.Ps?

          The O.P. No.1, to promote his sale not disclosed before the Complainant to whom the vehicle was sold earlier and under what circumstances the old vehicle was sold to the Complainant showing a new one, not explained. The O.P. No.1 has been set ex-parte in the case. The practice adopted by the O.P. No.1 is an unfair trade practice, cheated the complainant brought absolute dissatisfaction in the mind of the complainant. it amounts to deficiency in service.

Issue No.3 What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

          The Complainant being aggrieved sort redressal before this Forum/Commission and entitled for relief.

          It is ordered:

ORDER

          The Complainant is allowed against the O.P. No.1, who is solely responsible for the sale of old vehicle. The O.P. No.1 is directed to replace the old vehicle with new one of same model EECO-5-STR (White Colour) Maruti Vehicle within one month of the receipt of this order. In case of non compliance, the O.P. will be liable to pay Rs. 3,48,967.07 and other expenses of Rs. 88,000/- to the Complainant along with 7% interest from the date of purchase i.e. 22.01.2016 till realisation.

          Litigation cost Rs. 10,000/- is to be paid by the O.P. No.1 to the Complainant.

          Order pronounced on this 10^th day of August 2022 in open court.

          Supply free copies to the parties.