PER SHRI. S. G. CHABUKSWAR – HON’BLE  MEMBER

1)        This is the complaint for the reliefs against the Opposite Parties for Rs.4,89,340/- i.e. cost of the vehicle in question with interest @ 12% p.a. and to take back the said vehicle and pay Rs.1,50,000/- compensation towards mental agony and cost of this complaint.

2)        The case of the Complainant in short is as under –

The Complainant is unemployed person therefore, he decided to purchase a vehicle Tata Model 207 DI.   Opposite Party No.2 is the dealer of Opposite Party No.1 Tata Motors Ltd. The Complainant had approached to the Opposite Party No.2 for purchasing the vehicle.  Opposite Party No.2 obtained signatures of the Complainant on various blank forms stating that those forms relates to booking, registration, taxes, insurance and finance to be obtained from the manufacturer’s sub-office.  Opposite Party No.2 thereafter obtained cheque of Rs.50,000/- from the Complainant towards initial payment as marginal money.  However, no receipt showing details of same were supplied to the complaint. Opposite Party No.2 registered the vehicle under Registration No.MH-06-AG-81. Thereafter, the vehicle was delivered by way of gate-pass dtd.12/04/2006 wherein Chassis number, Engine number and other details have been mentioned. Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 at the time of delivery of the vehicle did not part with the registration certificate of the vehicle on the pretext that the same would be in the custody of Opposite Party No.1 as they have provided the finance.  Opposite Party No.2 though the vehicle purchased by the Complainant being new one did not supply vehicle manual with warranty cards and service slips.

3)        According to the Complainant there were free services during the warranty period.  Accordingly he took-up vehicle in question for servicing in the month of July, 2006 but Opposite Party refused to accept vehicle for servicing on the ground that Registration No.MH-06-AG-81 is not on their record.  The vehicle in question was taken to the other garage and he was required to spent money for servicing and repairs even during the period of warranty.  Opposite Party No1 had asked the Complainant by the letter dtd.18/07/2006 a copy of R.C. Book and insurance copy as soon as vehicle is registered.  Opposite Party No.2 was in possession of R.C. book as the finance was provided to the vehicle in question.  Opposite Party No.2 had taken possession of the vehicle on the pretext of outstanding amount of Rs.63,000/- by the letter dtd.27/12/2006.  The Complainant paid Rs.57,000/- for the release of seized vehicle.  The number of vehicle in question was shown as MH-06-AG-085 in the statement dtd.06/01/2007 which the Complainant received.  Opposite Party No.2 has mentioned the vehicle No.MH-06-AG-085 whereas the vehicle number of Complainant is MH-06-AG-081.  The Legal Service Authority Mumbai in its notice dtd.29/02/2008 for settlement of claim shown the number of vehicle in question as MH-06-AG-085. On 26/05/2008 the Registering Authority Pen-Raigad provided the information called by the Complainant in which the model of vehicle in question was shown of December, 2004.  Opposite Parties have sold and delivered old vehicle to the Complainant as new one of 2006.  The said act of Opposite Parties comes within the meaning of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The Complainant has informed the fact of above cheating to the Police Station, Vakola but in vain.  Hence, this complaint for the reliefs as mentioned in para 1 of this order.

4)        The Opposite Party Nos.1a & 1b resisted the claim by filing written statement on 18/09/2008.  The contention of Opposite Party No.1 is that Opposite Party No.1a is the manufacturer of the vehicle in question and is responsible for the manufacturing defects and the dealer is responsible for the “after sale service”.  The relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer is principal to principal.  The manufacturer had sold the vehicle in question to the dealer and thereafter the dealer sold the said vehicle to the Complainant. The Complainant had availed a heavy discount of Rs.76,000/- from Opposite Party No.2.  The Complainant is fully aware the year of manufacturing of said vehicle.  Opposite Party No.1b had given loan Rs.4,00,000/- to the Complainant under agreement dtd.10/04/2006. The Complainant had paid Rs.1,63,346/- only.  The Complainant never paid the monthly installments on its due dates.  The Complainant out of 30 installments has paid only 17 installments.  The Complainant is using the vehicle worth Rs.5,40,000/- as against which he had paid Rs.1,63,346/-.

5)        The further contention of the Opposite Party NO.1 is that inadvertently the R.C. Book sent for punching was punched as MH-06-AG-0085 instead of MH-06-AG-0081.  All other details are correct.  The Complainant is trying to take advantage of a small inadvertent error, for unlawful gains.  The Complainant has not given any details of the alleged heavy repairs carried out and the names of the garages where the same were carried out and the amount spent by him.  The Opposite Party No.1 has denied that the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed.  Opposite Party NO.1 has denied all allegations of the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6)        The Opposite Party No.2 did not appear inspite of service of notice hence, complaint proceeded ex-party against Opposite Party No.2.

7)        The Complainant has submitted his affidavit of evidence and rejoinder on 10/10/2008.  The Complainant has submitted documents alongwith complaint from  C-1 to C-12.  Opposite Party No.1 has submitted affidavit of evidence of Somarao Chidambarrao Kulkarni, Constituted Attorney and documents on 19/09/2009.  Opposite Party No.1 has submitted written notes of arguments on 15/12/2009.  The Complainant has submitted written notes of arguments on 07/02/2012.  We heard Shri. Ganesh Shirke, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and Shri. Ashutosh Marathe, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1.  From the above evidence and arguments following points arise for our determination and our findings thereon are noted against each of them for the reasons given below –

                                    Points                                                                     Findings          

1.  Does the Complainant prove that there is deficiency         

     in service and unfair trade practice on the part of                                Negative 

     Opposite Parties ?                       

2.  Whether Complainant is entitled to the relies                                       Negative

     as clamed. ?                                      

3.  What order ?                                                                                        As per final order.

Reasons :-

8) Point Nos.1 & 2:  The main grievance of the Complainant is that, in some of the letters and communication the RTO registration number of the vehicle in question has been shown as MH-06-AG-0081 and in some of the letters and communication the registration number of said vehicle has been shown as MH-06-AG-0085  Therefore, the doubts was created about the genuineness of the vehicle in question.  Thereon he obtained copy of invoice dtd.25/06/2005 and information from the R.T.O. Office, Raigad.  From the said documents it appears that Opposite Parties have sold him old model of the vehicle of the years 2004 by pretending it to be a model of the year 2006. 

9)        The Complainant has produced invoice dtd.25/06/2005. The said invoice is bearing No.500548 and date is 25/06/2005.  The customer code number is 20TJ0291 and date of order of the vehicle as 25/06/2005 have been mentioned therein.  The Chassis number 374450 MUZ946764, Engine number 497SP27 MUZ955438, Model No.27019131001R of the vehicle have been shown in the invoice dtd.25/06/2005.  According to the Complainant, he was not having knowledge of the above invoice.  However, he has not raised dispute about the gate pass dtd.12/04/2006.  He has admitted in the complaint that he obtained delivery of the vehicle in question by the gate pass dated 12/04/2006.  The customer code number of a person of booking of the vehicle mentioned in the gate pass and invoice dtd.25/06/2005 are same.  The invoice number 500548 is also appearing in the gate pass dtd.12/04/2006.  It means the person of a customer code number who obtained the delivery of the vehicle by the gate pass dtd.12/04/2006 had given the order of vehicle mentioned in the invoice dtd.25/06/2005.  As per the invoice the order of vehicle was given on 25/06/2005. The model number, chassis number, engine number of the vehicle mentioned in the gate pass dtd.12/04/2006 and information provided by RTO Officer dtd.26/05/2008 and in the invoice dtd.25/06/2005 are one and the same. From the above documents it is clear that the vehicle mentioned in the invoice dtd.25/06/2005 has been handed-over to the Complainant by the gate pass dtd.12/04/2006.  The Complainant himself had booked the vehicle mentioned in the gate pass dtd.12/04/2006. The date of order/booking has been shown in the invoice as 25/06/2005.  Thus, it cannot be said that on 25/06/2005 the Complainant had booked the vehicle of model of the year 2006.  The model of 2006 was not in existence on 25/06/2005 therefore, question of booking of model of the year 2006 does not arise on 25/06/2005.  The copy of tax invoice bearing no.500548 and information of the vehicle provided by the RTO, Raigad dtd.26/05/2008 clearly goes to show that the model of the vehicle purchased by the Complainant was of the year 2004 i.e. December, 2004 and not of the year 2006.  There is no substance in the contention of the Complainant to say that Opposite Parties have adopted unfair trade practice and delivered him the vehicle of the model of the year 2004 in stead of the model of year 2006. 

10)      The RTO registration number of the vehicle in question have been shown MH-06-AG-0081 in the letter issued by the Opposite Party No.2 dtd.27/12/2006, receipt issued by Opposite Party No.1 dtd.21/09/2006, two receipts issued by RTO, Pen, Raigad dtd.12/04/2006 to the Complainant. The RTO registration number of the vehicle in question has been mentioned as MH-06-AG-0085 by the Tata Motors Ltd. only in the statements of account dtd.06/07/2007, 17/12/2007, 05/03/2008, 17/03/2008, receipt dtd.09/01/2007 and notice dtd.15/05/2008 issued by Tata Motors to the Complainant.  The RTO registration number MH-06-AG-0081 of the vehicle in question has been correctly mentioned in the initial documents i.e. receipts and letter dtd.12/04/2006, 21/09/2006 and 27/12/2006.  The incorrect registration number as MH-06-AG-0085 has been written only in the statement of accounts by the concern section.  Opposite Party No.1 has fairly admitted that due to inadvertentance incorrect registration number of the vehicle has been shown in some of the documents/ communication.  It is not the case of the Complainant that chassis number, engine number of the vehicle mentioned in the gate pass dtd.12/04/2006 and mentioned in the invoice dtd.25/06/2005 are different.  On the contrary those numbers are the same. It is also not the case of the Complainant that chassis and engine number of the vehicle possessed by him is different than mentioned in the gate pass dtd.12/04/2006 and information provided by RTO Raigad dtd.26/05/08.  From the above documents it is clear that incorrect registration number of vehicle has been wrongly shown in the statements of account by the concern section of Tata Motors Ltd. The Complainant has not sustained loss or harm due to mentioning of incorrect registration number of vehicle in the statements of account. 

11)      Opposite Party No.2 had taken possession of the vehicle from the Complainant due to non-payment of the outstanding dues Rs.63,000/- by issuing letter dtd.27/12/2006. Opposite Party No.2 has mentioned in the said letter the registration number of vehicle as MH-06-AG-0081.  This fact shows that Complainant was in possession of the vehicle bearing No.MH-06-AG-0081 and not MH-06-AG-85.  The Complainant has admitted that he is possession of vehicle bearing No.MH-06-AG-0081. The Complainant has pleaded in the complaint and deposed on oath that Opposite Party No.2 refused to accept the vehicle for servicing because the vehicle was having registration No.MH-06-AG-81 and it was not on their record.  He had taken the vehicle to the other garage.  He was required to spend money for servicing and repairs even during the period of warranty.  The Complainant has not disclosed the name of the garage where he got servicing and repairing of the vehicle and it’s dates.  He has also not stated how much amount he expended on the servicing and repairs of the vehicle in question.  He has not produced the job-card of the work done of the vehicle.  In the absence of the above such evidence it is difficult to say that Complainant got servicing and repairs of the vehicle in question from the other garage. The Complainant has not pointed out any manufacturer defect in the vehicle in question.  The Complainant has also not sought the relief of issuing directions to the Opposite Parties for returning the RC Book to the Complainant. The fact of mere mentioning incorrect registration number of vehicle in the statements does not amounts to deficiency of service.  The Complainant failed to prove that he sustained loss due to mentioning of incorrect registration number in the statements of accounts.

12)      Shri. Ganesh Shirke, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant in support of his argument relied on the judgement reported in I (2014) CPJ 120 (NC), Hind Motor (I) Ltd & Anr. Tata Motors  V/s. Lakhbir Singh & Another.  In the said case vehicle was manufactured in the July, 2005.  There was manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and it was old as well as used vehicle.  Immediately after its purchase, the vehicle started developing technical snags.  In the present case the Complainant has not come out with the case of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.  So also it was not old and used vehicle.  Shri. Ganesh Shirke, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has further relied on the citation reported in II (2013) CPJ 5 (NC) (CN) Marikar (Motors) Ltd. V/s. K.L. Chinamma & Ors. In the said case Opposite Party had sold 2006 model car to the Complainant as 2007 model car, the car having in fact been earlier used by the petitioner for demonstration purpose.  In the present case failed to prove that Opposite Party sold him model of 2004 as a new model of the year 2006.  Hence, both the citations relied by the Complainant do not support him.

13)      Shri. Ashutosh Marathe, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 in support of his argument relied on the judgment reported in IV (2011) CPJ 300 (NC) Jaswant Singh V/s. Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble National Commission observed that –

“In the instant case the Respondent No.1’s relationship with Respondent No.2 (dealer) was on principal to principal basis and he not being its agent.  Respondent No.1 could not be held liable or responsible for any deficiency in service or any other malpractice committed by Respondent No.2.”

Shri. Ashutosh Marathe, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 has further relied on the common judgement delivered by the Hon’ble National Commission in the Revision Petition Nos.3298/2004 & 3314/2004 on 13/09/2004, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission observed that -

 “However, since defects noticed are not manufacturing defects and relationship between Manufacturer and Authorized Dealer being that of ‘principal to principal’. Manufacturer would be immune from liability to honour the award.”

Shri. Ashutosh Marathe, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 has also relied on the judgement reported in I (2010) CPJ 19 (NC) Dr. K. Kumar Advisor (Engineering) Maruti Udyog Ltd. V/s. Dr. A.S. Narayan Rao and Ors., wherein the Hon’ble National Commission observed that -

“Since car in question ran smoothly and trouble free for about 16 months from the time of its purchase it is itself indicative of the fact that there was no manufacturing defect.  That apart, there was no finding of any person having know-how or technical knowledge in such matters about there being defect in the vehicle. Since respondent purchased car in question in auction sale in open market at much lower price than the price of a new car, he cannot claim warranty. Manufacturer in these circumstances was not liable to make payment or any repair or replacement of component.”           

In the present case Complainant failed to establish that Opposite Parties have adopted unfair trade practice by selling old model of the vehicle of 2004 as of new model of year 2006.  The Complainant has also failed to prove rendering of deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has not sustained loss or harm due to mentioning incorrect registration number of the vehicle in the statements of account.  In view of this, we hold that Complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed by him.  Hence, point nos.1 & 2 are answered in the negative.  Considering the nature of complaint both parties have to bear their own cost. In the result complaint deserves to be dismissed therefore, we proceed to pass following order –

O R D E R

i.                 Complaint No.110/2008 is dismissed.

ii.                Both parties shall bear their own costs.  

iii.               Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.