Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Aggrieved with the Order dated 25-02-2019 of the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central), passed in CC/528/2017, this Appeal is preferred by M/s Renault Kolkata Central (a unit of Vibrant Motors Private Ltd.).
The dispute revolves around a car that was purchased by the Respondent No. 1 from the Appellant in the year 2017.
Both sides were heard in this respect and documents on record carefully scanned through.
It is the case of the Appellant that the prevailing price of the model initially chosen by the Respondent No. 1 was about Rs. 14,00,000/-. However, as the Respondent No. 1 could not afford it, he opted for the subject/disputed car that was manufactured in the year 2015.
In this regard, it is noteworthy that although Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant claimed that the Respondent No. 1 was provided whooping discount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (approx.) together with other benefits, he refrained from advancing any scrap of paper in support of such contention. In case of any discount, the same would definitely get reflected prominently in the Tax Invoice. On a reference to the Tax Invoice, we did not notice any such noting.
Another staggering claim being made by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant is that prior to delivery of the car in question to the Respondent No. 1, for test driving purpose, it ran 28,834 kms. We find no reason to believe such unpractical claim. Though the Respondent No. 1 raised a very pertinent point in his petition of complaint, i.e., how could the car ply about 29,000 kms. on the road without due registration, the Appellant simply bypassed this issue for obvious reasons.
In any case, if the car indeed ran such huge distance beforehand, it was obligatory on the part of the Appellant to take the Respondent No. 1 into confidence about this crucial aspect while booking the car itself. Significantly, in the Order Booking Form dated 12-06-2017, there was no mention of such fact. It appears that the Respondent No. 1 was informed about this aspect for the first time only on 24-07-2017. Incidentally, by that time, entire payment of the car was gleefully pocketed by the Appellant. It is claimed by the Respondent No. 1 that although he was reluctant to accept the car at that point in time, he was persuaded to accept it by the men of Appellant who told him that since due registration of the car was already made in his (Respondent No. 1) name, he was bound to accept it.
Another intriguing fact that caught us by surprise is that the alloy steel wheels and tyre of the car needed replacement and there was a dent in the rear bumper of the car before its delivery. If it was indeed a new car, as sought to be projected by the Appellant, the aforesaid defects would definitely not be there. Nay more, the Respondent No. 1 alleged that he faced frequent problems with the car ever since its delivery as the car in question became defunct every now and then.
We afraid, if indeed a first-hand car was delivered to the Respondent No. 1, as was obligatory on the part of the Appellant to do so, the former would definitely not pass through such harrowing time from the very beginning.
It is also alleged by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 that when he took the car to the Batanagar workshop of the Appellant, officials of the said workshop refused to offer free servicing and demanded money from him paying scant regard to the additional warranty of 50,000 kms. provided vide MoU dated 24-07-2017.
Seen against this backdrop, it appears to us that the Ld. District Forum let off the Appellant very lightly. Indications are ripe that a second hand car was delivered to the Respondent No. 1, which was a clear act of unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellant. It is indeed unfortunate that instead of feeling sorry for its unlawful acts, the Appellant chose to test the tenacity of the Respondent No. 1 further by moving this Appeal.
Considering the emerging facts as above, we are inclined to dismiss this Appeal with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent No. 1.
