ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as O.Ps) alleging the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in selling Skoda Rapid Ambition diesel car as that of 2018 model wherein, the car sold to him was of 2017 model and for replacement of the said vehicle with the vehicle manufactured in the year 2018 and in the alternative to pay Rs.4,00,000/- being the depreciation value for one year and for Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for causing mental and physical agony and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the cost incurred for the litigation and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

OP2 is the manufacturer of Skoda Rapid Ambition model car whereas OP1 is the dealer of the said vehicle.  He intended to purchase a vehicle Skoda Rapid Ambition diesel car of 2018 model. OP1 agreed to sell the same and showed him the sale certificate. He believed that the said vehicle was manufactured in 2018 and by obtaining loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from Volkswagen Finance Ltd., and by paying a down payment of Rs.3,00,000/- on his own purchased the said vehicle and also hypothecated the same to the finance company.   When he received the registration certificate and insurance documents, he came to know that the said vehicle was manufactured in the year 2017 and not in the year 2018. The insurance paper and the sale certificate in form No.21 were not tallying each other.  OP 1 has fabricated the documents to sell a 2017 manufactured car as that of manufactured in the year 2018.  In this regard legal notice was issued to OP1 and 2.  Inspite of it, they neither replied nor complied with the demands.  OP2 on 15.11.2018 came forward to offer a Skoda maintenance package for four years or 60000 kms.  Even there also, the vehicle manufacturing year mentioned as 2017 instead of 2018.  When questioned, he was informed that it is a typographical error.  By suppressing the year of manufacturing, OP1 has sold the same to him as that of 2018 which made him to suffer great loss and he was cheated and thereby he suffered mentally and physically and hence there is deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and prayed the commission to allow the complaint.

3.      Upon the service of notice, OP2 remained exparte and on the application filed the same was set aside and OP2 filed the version.  OP1 though took several time to file the version did not file the version and right to file the version forfeited and the prayer was rejected.  Upon which, OP1 preferred a R.P. before the State Commission in No.R.P.No.38/2020 and the same was allowed and in furtherance of the same, the version filed by the OP1 was taken on file.  

4.      In the version filed by OP1, it has admitted that it is the dealer selling the product of OP2 and has sold a car for Rs.11,00,000/- to the complainant but denied that it has misrepresented and practiced unfair trade practice in selling a car manufactured in the year 2017 as that of manufactured in the year 2018.  The same has to be proved strictly by the complainant.  Complainant is not entitled for replacement of the vehicle or value of the depreciation.

5.      It is further contended that the complainant has suppressed the real facts and has come up with unjust claim.  On 02.10.2018 the complainant approached OP1 and being satisfied with the vehicle sent an email confirming the booking of the said car with white colour.  Hence OP1 blocked the said car manufactured by OP2.   Complainant informed them that he had got a better offer from another dealer for the same car. In view of this, OP1 informed the complainant that they would be able to offer him a vehicle identification number 17 manufacturing year 2018 ambition model in CBEIGE colour for the same price. 

6.      The complainant accepted for the same and sent an email confirming cancellation of the white car which he had booked earlier and agreed to pay the price at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle through email dated 31.10.2018 by affixing his signature in the order form.  Accordingly complainant made payment on 30.10.2018 and also he was informed regarding the registration to be done and opted to get the registration at the Mysore Registration Office.  The same was registered on 24.11.2018 at Mysore.  Delivery challan acknowledgement has been issued to the complainant clearly mentions that the year of manufacture of vehicle as 2017 and the chassis mentions the VIN and MY as 2018.  Complainant took the delivery of the vehicle on 02.11.2018 by signing the delivery acknowledgement in which it has been clearly mentions as 2017 only.  Now the complainant cannot be compensated as he was made to believe that the manufacturing of the vehicle is 2018. 

7.      The complainant very well knowing that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2017, only and since he was unable to get registration in Mysore as 2018, is resorting to the unlawful, unethical filing of this complaint.  Complainant has only paid Rs.10,53,350/- and not Rs.11,00,000/- as stated by him.  While selling the car the complainant was clearly informed that it is a car manufactured in the year 2017 and the same was indicated in the delivery acknowledgement note.  All the documents provided to the complainant clearly shows that the year of manufacturing is 2017.  The complainant has filed this complaint after running the vehicle for about four months.  This complaint is filed which is oppose to the principles of law and equity.  There is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed the commission to dismiss the same.

8.      In the version filed by OP2, it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Complainant has suppressed the material facts. The complainant approached OP1 on 02.10.2018 to enquire regarding the Skoda car.  He expressed his desire to purchase the same.  On 10.10.2018 he gave his confirmation and willingness to purchase a Skoda rapid ambition 1.5 TDI MT white colour vehicle. Thereafter, he cancelled the said booking, and wanted to purchase a rapid ambition diesel manual capachino beige car.  After the purchase, the same was registered as KA 09 ME 1310. OP2 was informed by OP1 that they have informed the complainant that the car is manufactured in the year 2017.  The delivery note issued on 13.10.2018 clearly states that the car was manufactured in September 2017.  The delivery acknowledgement note was duly signed by the complainant himself.

9.      The contentions raised by the complainant are all false and the same is strictly proved by the complainant.  Since the complainant wanted the car to be registered in the Mysore Registration authority, the said car was temporarily registered in Bangalore and on the evening of the same day, the car was delivered to the complainant by signing the relevant documents which clearly mentions the year of manufacturing as 2017.  Either OP1 or OP2 have never misguided, misinformed, misrepresented or practiced any unfair means in selling the said vehicle.  Complaint has not suffered any monitory loss or mental agony.  OP2 is not liable for any of the reliefs claimed by the complainant and hence prayed the commission to dismiss the same.

10.    In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

11.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 AND 2:                In the Negative

                                        For the following.

REASONS

12.   POINT No.1 AND 2:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the vehicle with invoice NO.BNG01-P31 model Skoda rapid new ABN-MT 1.5 TDI CR with engine No.CWX 177416, VIN TMBBVJNA6HG 109437, manufacturing month is September and manufacturing year is 2017.  Ex.R5 is the delivery acknowledgement note wherein on 31.10.2018 the complainant has took the delivery of the vehicle in a good condition, wherein it is clearly mentioned as manufacturing year 2017, even the delivery acknowledgement note mention the manufacturing month as September and year as 2017. 

        13.   It is the specific contention of the complainant as per Ex.P1 the sale certificate issued by OP1 that the year of manufacturing date is mentioned as October 2018 and the insurance certificate also mentions the same. When the delivery acknowledgement note Ex.R5 and 6 are taken into consideration, it becomes clear that too when the complainant has put his signature at the customer signature place, he very well knew that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2017.  It may be due to the mistake on the part of the OP1 in mentioning the year of manufacture in the sale certificate as 2018.  No independent evidence has been produced by the complainant to show that the complainant has been misguided, misrepresented and unfair trade practiced.  When such being the case, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP is proved. Hence we answer point No.1 and 2 in the negative and also complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs.

        14.   However we direct OP1 to issue a fresh sale certificate in form No.31 to the authorities concerned mentioning the month and year of manufacturing as September 2017 instead of October 2018 and also request the insurance company to change the manufacturing month and year of the vehicle in respect to vehicle NO. KA 09 ME 1310 within 30 days and proceed pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is Dismissed. No cost.
2. OP1 is directed to issue a fresh sale certificate in form No.31 mentioning the month and year of manufacturing as September 2017 instead of October 2018 and also direct the insurance company to change the manufacturing month and year of the vehicle in respect to vehicle NO. KA 09 ME 1310  within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 23^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Sale certificate Form NO.21

Ex P2: Copy of the insurance certificate

Ex. P3: Copy of the insurance ID proof

Ex P4: Copy of the email correspondences

Ex P5: Copy of the loan sanction letter

Es P6: Copy of the RC

Ex P7: Copy of the legal notice dated 03.01.2019 and 19.01.2019

Ex P8: Copy of the postal acknowledgement

Ex P9: Copy of the reply given by OPs dated 29.01.2019, 06.02.2019 and 07.02.2019

Ex P10: Copy of the service maintenance package for having paid

Ex P11: Copy of tax invoice

Ex P12: Copy of the receipt for having regn. Of road tax

Ex P13: Copy of the ledger account extract

Ex P14: Copy of the vehicle delivery challan

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri.Ganesh Kishore – OP2

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the merger order passed by the NCLT Mumbai branch

Ex R2: Copy of the delivery acknowledgement note

Ex R3: Letter of authorization

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-2: Sri.Damodhar – OP1

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Authorisation letter issued by my office to represent them and

Ex R2: Delivery notes and acknowledgement

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

HAV*