Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I):

                    Complainant Sri. Abhilash residing at Thulasi Mandiram, Nedumon P.O, Adoor filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:  Complainant purchased a TATA SAFARI GX 4X2 BS3 vehicle manufactured by the I^st opposite party through its dealers 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party on 09/05/11.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party made the complainant to believe that the vehicle is brand new and was manufactured in the month of March 2011.  The documents issued to the complainant also indicated the same and he has registered the vehicle using the said documents as Register No.KL-26-B-6167.  Complainant had purchased the vehicle solely on the basis of the assurance given by the opposite parties that even though the fuel consumption is high the vehicle would have power and performance. While so, whenever the complainant used the vehicle for any long drive for more than 50 km long, it had been steped in the middle of the road and could be able to restart only after some time.  Several parts of the vehicle including electrical and mechanical was defective and was not working properly.  Complainant approached 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party several times seeking redressal of his grievances, but they have not turned up.  From 09/05/11 to 18/02/15 till the date of filing the complaint the vehicle have run only up to 24155 k.m.  Due to the regular complaint of the vehicle complainant decided to exchange the same and approached the Popular Maruti, Adoor Branch.  After checking they informed the complainant that the chasis number of the above mentioned vehicle was checked another person’s name is showing as the owner and not the complainant.  This problem was earlier brought into the attention of the complainant by an authorized service provider of the 1^st opposite party and they registered a complaint to the customer care of the 1^st opposite party and they informed the complainant that it is an error in the database and assured its prompt correction.

                   3. Thereafter, the complainant has again approached Popular Maruti, Adoor for exchanging the vehicle telling them about reason for change in name as told by the 1^st opposite party.  It was then they told the complainant that when they checked the above mentioned vehicle it was found that it is manufactured in the month of 2010 July and this fact was not shown in the Registration Certificate.  Besides the vehicle was subject to mechanical troubles and it was serviced even before it was sold to the complainant and two names appear in whose favour the vehicle was seen registered. That is why they have not interested in taking complainants vehicle in exchange.  Complainant himself searched the website namely www.myvehicledetails.com and the result was really shocking to the complainant as told by the popular maruti executives.

                   4. Complainant approached the authorized service station of the 1st opposite party and from the service record it was revealed that the vehicles chasis number stands in the name of Managing Director as on 28/09/2010 and thereafter in the name of one Molly Salas as on 30/10/2010.  Thereafter the vehicle was delivered to the complainant as it is manufactured in the month of March 2011.  It was further revealed that the vehicle was subject to repair on 09/02/2011 which is also before it was sold to the complainant.  It was then only the complainant realized that the problems occurred to the vehicle was even prior to his purchase and the opposite parties have sold it to him with that knowledge suppressing the actual facts to the complainant.  Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.11,76,145 to the opposite parties for purchasing the vehicle.  The above said act of the opposite parties in selling defective and old model vehicle by representing it to be a new model and good condition vehicle amounts to unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence this complainant for getting compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- with 12% interest from the date of complaint along with cost of the proceedings.

                   5. In this case 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite party set ex-parte.

                   6. I^st opposite party filed their version with the following contentions: Complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle after personally inspecting the same and being satisfied with the vehicle.   So there is no basis in the allegation of the complainant that he had purchased the vehicle solely on the assurance of the opposite parties.  Whenever the complainant had taken his vehicle to the workshop of opposite party 2 and 3 with any alleged complaints service personnel in the workshop check the vehicle and the complaints noticed being minor in nature attended to the satisfaction of the complainant.  On each occasion complainant taken the vehicle satisfied with the work due by opposite parties.

                   7. The allegation of the complainant regarding the opinion of popular maruti was not binding to these opposite parties.  The claim of the complainant that the vehicle sold to him was originally sold to another customer is incorrect and against facts.  The vehicle had been billed in the name of another customer had not been delivered to that customer as he had cancelled the booking after the billing,  The delay in rectifying the records in this regard were on account of certain technical problems.  The further allegation that the vehicle had undergone repairs prior to the sale is incorrect and denied.  During the pre-delivery inspection conducted by the dealer only topping up of the power steering fluid is done.

                   8. There is no manufacturing defect to the said vehicle opposite parties has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice to the complainant.  With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   9. On the basis of the complaint and version we have framed the following issues:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost?

10. For the sake of convenience, we consider two issues together.  The evidence of this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 and C1.  There is no oral or documentary evidence from the opposite parties.  Even though opposite party appeared and filed their version they did not turn up for cross-examination of PW1.  Hence the evidence adduced by PW1 is unchallengeable as far as the opposite party is concerned.  After the closure of evidence, complainant was heard.

11. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext A1 to A3 and C1.  Ext A1 is the Registration Certificate dated 21/05/11 in the name of the complainant. Ext A2 is the web print of vehicle history.  Ext A3 is the service history from        St. Antony’s Motors India Ltd.  Ext C1 is the Commission Report prepared by Motor Vehicle Inspector Ajikumar dated 13/07/2016.

12. On the basis of the arguments of the complainant’s side and version of the opposite party, we have perused the entire materials on evidence and found that there is no dispute with the sale of the vehicle.   The only dispute raised is that opposite parties’ sold a defective and old model vehicle by representing it to be new model and good vehicle to the complainant.

13. According to the complainant, opposite parties delivered a defective vehicle to him.  Regarding this aspects the conclusive evidence before the Forum is the commission report prepared by the M.V.I  Ajikumar.   In his report he categorically stated that, “hml-\-¯nsâ I­o-j³ ]cn-tim-[n-¨-Xn Ime -]-g¡w aqe-ap-ff £a-X-Ip-d-h-ÃmsX aäv XI-cm-dp-IÄ H¶pw Xs¶ \ne-hn ImWp-¶n-Ã''. Moreover complainant purchased the vehicle in the year of 2011, after using 4 years such allegation is not sustainable without cogent evidence.  Extensive use of vehicle would not have been possible if there had been any manufacturing defect. Second allegation is regarding the manufacturing year.  According to the complainant, vehicle was manufactured in the year of 2010 but the opposite parties sold it as a model of 2011.  Moreover in the vehicle history it is seen that the vehicle was subject to repair on 09.02.2011.  On going through the Ext A1 document, it is seen that manufacturing year was mentioned as 2011.  But as per the inspection through vinsearch website it is seen that it is manufactured in the year of 2010.  Opposite parties in their version it is also admitted that some delay was occurred in rectifying the records on account of certain technical problems.  However the facts and circumstances of this case it can be seen that complainant had sustained some difficulties and inconveniences due to the mistake occurred in records.  Opposite parties neither cross–examined the complainant or adduce any evidence to prove their case.  Therefore, we find no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s these allegations against the opposite parties.  Therefore complainant’s allegation stand proved as unchallenged.

14. Opposite parties being service providers such type of mistakes are not expected.  The said mistake, no doubt caused some inconvenience to the complainant.  So the complainant is entitled to get a reasonable compensation for his inconvenience.  As per the evidence of this case, it is proved that opposite parties 1 to 3 are equally and severally liable to the complainant.  Hence Point No.1 and 2 found accordingly.  Therefore this complaint can be allowed in part against opposite parties.

                   15. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed thereby opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the complainant with cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) within 15 days from the receipt of this order, failing which complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% interest till the realization of the whole amount.

       Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2016.

                                                                                   (Sd/-)

                                                                            K.P. Padmasree,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (Member - I)

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)   :  (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)                   :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Abhilash

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Registration Certificate dated 21/05/11 in the name of the complainant.  A2 :  Web print of vehicle history. 

A3 : Service history from St. Antony’s Motors India Ltd. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

Court Exhibit:

C1 : Commission Report

                                                                                           (By Order)

Copy to:- (1)  Abhilash, Thulasi Mandiram, Nedumon.P.O,

           Arukalickal East, Pin – 691556.

(2) The President (Passenger Vehicle Business Unit),

 Tata Motors Limited, Bombay House,

           24 Homi Mody Street, Fort,

           Mumbai – 400 001

3.  The Chairman & Managing Director, Mehar Reynold,

 St. Antony’s Motors India Ltd, Thanikkapdy,

           K.K. Road, Vadavathoor. P.O, Pin - 686 010,

           Kottayam.

4. The Chairman & Managing Director, Mehar Reynold,

                    St. Antony’s Motors India Ltd., Vilavinal Raj Towers,

           Santhosh Junction, Pathanamthitta. P.O.,

           Pin – 689 645.

     (5)  The Stock File.