BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY

Dated this the 27^th day of April 2018

Consumer Complaint No.8/2014

S. Paramaguru, son of T. Sivalingam

No.7-D, Amara Apartments

2^nd Cross Street, Natesan Nagar East,

Puducherry – 605 005.

                 ………                           Complainant

                                                               vs

1. The Authorised Officer 

    Mercedes Benz India Private Limited                                           

    E-3, MIDC, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Noghoje

    Tal Khed, Pune – 410 501.

2. The Authorised Officer

    Trans Car India Private Limited

    No.355-A GST Road

    Chennai – 600 016.

3. The Authorised Officer

    Trans Car India Private Limited

    Showroom at No.86, 1^st Floor,

    Villianur Main Road, Reddiarpalayam,

    Pondicherry – 605 010.

                                                          ……….                          Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

HON’BLE JUSTICE Thiru K. VENKATARAMAN,   

PRESIDENT

 Thiru S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

Thiru U. Mohan Ilayaraja, Advocate             

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

Ms. Kamala Kumar and Thiru M.S. Pandit,

Advocates for OP1

O  R  D  E  R

(By Justice Thiru K. Venkataraman, President)

          The complainant filed the present complaint u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite parties to recall the defective vehicle bearing VIN No. WDD2040036L053718, Registration No. PY-01-BT-1212 and to reimburse the amount of Rs.36,05,153/- along with 24% interest from the date of delivery of vehicle  till date of payment;  to pay compensation as damages for mental agony to a tune of Rs.10.00 lakhs; to pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs for insufficiency of service;  to pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs for unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for cost of this complaint and other orders.

          2. The case of the complainant, as set out in his complaint,  in a nutshell, is stated hereunder:

          (a) Though he possessed other vehicles, in order to purchase a brand name of the first opposite party, he had in September 2012 approached the second opposite party for purchasing a Mercedez Benz.  On 01.11.2012, he had accepted  ex-showroom price of Rs.36,05,153/- for the said car.  The next day itself, the car was delivered by the second opposite party to the complainant through third opposite party.  At that time, the second opposite party has got several signatures in the unfilled forms and papers.  After purchase, he approached the second opposite party on 4.12.2012 for service.  The second opposite party told the complainant that there was alloy wheel problem and hence, it has to be changed, for which, the complainant gave consent.  The second opposite party informed the complainant that there is no stock of alloy wheel which will be changed in the next service;

          b) On 14.03.2013, the second opposite party replaced only one wheel though there was problem in two wheels.  When questioned, the second opposite party gave a reply that there was no stock.  The complainant though lost his confidence on the said incidence, but digested it for the sake of his dream to hold a Mercedes Benz.  The  second opposite party also gave an assurance to replace the another alloy wheel in the next  service.  However, again the problem in the wheel started on 21.6.2013 and a general service was made with specific issue of replacement and remarks has also made for replacement of alloy wheel.  While so, again on 22.06.2013, once again, the said problem persisted, but the second opposite party changed the stepney wheel in the place of rear left hand side alloy wheel and further stated that the replacement of the wheel will be made in due course.   Meanwhile, the problems, like, anti-lock breaking system, cruise control and wiring harness etc. arose and hence, on 17.10.2013 the complainant handed over the vehicle to the second opposite party.  However, without making full repair, the vehicle was handed over on 21.11.2013.  Again, the problem arose on 02.12.2013.  At that point of time, the complainant was shocked to note that the vehicle supplied to the complainant is with an engine and wind shield which are of the model of 2011.  The date of manufacture as per the opposite parties record is of the year 2012.  Immediately, the complainant made repeated demands to clarify the manufacturing date, commissioning date of the first registration, but the second opposite party had pointed out each and other person shifting the burden on them and thus, the complainant was thrown pillar to post with no suitable reply. 

          c) The first date of registration seems to be on 30.04.2012 but the complainant has approached the second opposite party only in September 2012.  Thus, it clearly reveals that the said vehicle has been used by the second opposite party and by others and cunningly with an intention to cheat and defraud the complainant, the second opposite party sold the used vehicle to the complainant.  After regular follow up, on 26.12.2013 battery problem has been identified and the battery has been replaced.  Again, on 7.3.2014, pending repair of wiring harness had been partly repaired and delivered to the complainant on 12.03.2014.  Again on 7.5.2014, the same problem arose along with other problems.  The Service Engineers of the second opposite party had approached the complainant and made rectification in the wiring problem.  Thereafter, again the problem  crept in on 3.6.2014 and the vehicle has not been properly working.  The complainant approached the second opposite party on 7.6.2014;

          d)   Thus, the complainant has been cheated by the second opposite party by delivering used vehicle.  Therefore, the complainant has approached the State Commission for the following reliefs:

          1) to recall the defective vehicle bearing VIN No. WDD2040036L053718, Registration No. PY-01-BT-1212 and to reimburse the amount of Rs.36,05,153/- along with 24% interest from the date of delivery of vehicle to till date of payment;

          2) a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony;

          3) a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for insufficiency in service;

          4) a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for unfair trade practice;

          5) a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost.

          3. The reply version has been filed on behalf of the first opposite party, wherein, the following facts have been set out:

          a) The complainant purchased his vehicle from second opposite party who is the authorised dealer.  The authorised dealers are independent entities and the relationship between the company and the dealerships is on principal to principal basis.  However, the first opposite has scrutinized the details relating to the sale of the vehicle by the dealer and found that there is no basis in the allegations made by the complainant.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          b) The complainant is not a Consumer as per Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 since even as per the complaint, he has purchased the vehicle in connection with his business;

          c) The entire complaint made by the complainant is false.  It is also false to allege that the second opposite party has obtained signatures in blank unfilled forms and papers.  Upon verification, it has been found to be false.  The vehicle was sold to the complainant on 1.11.2012 and was registered thereafter.  The complainant's car was manufactured on 22.03.2012 in Pune and hence, it can be said that the year of manufacture is 2011.  The prefix of the vehicle's commission number starts with numerical number 2011.  This Commission number is the internal purchase transaction number which denotes that the order was placed by first opposite party  with Daimler AG., Germany and the year in the commission number does not signify the year of manufacture.  When the complainant has entertained a doubt, he should have raised his question when the tax invoice with respect to service of the vehicle was generated on 4.12.2012.  However, he raised the question only on 2.12.2013 after a year of purchase of the vehicle.  As per the terms of warranty, the warranty is limited to either repair or of goods supplied or the replacement of parts which the first opposite party recognized as defective at the sole discretion of first opposite party and replacement of the vehicle is not contemplated.  The warranty of complainant's car starts on 02.12.2012 from the date of purchase as it was mentioned in the warranty which was extended by a year as a gesture of goodwill.  The second opposite party has attended the complainant's concern relating to alloy wheel etc.  Thus, the question of taking action against the second opposite party does not arise.  The other repairs have been attended to properly;

          c) The vehicle has been duly tested and received certification of ISO/TS 16949:2009.  The cars manufactured by first opposite party has been duly approved by Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), an approved laboratory recognized under the Consumer Protection Act.  There is no evidence whatsoever to establish the claim of the complainant against first opposite party.  Thus, the reply version seeks for the dismissal of the complaint.

          4.  Reply Version has been filed on behalf of the second opposite party and the gist of the same is set out hereunder:

          The entire allegations of the complainant are figment of complainant's imaginations and  are false.  Whatever the complaint that has been stated by the complainant has been attended to within the warranty period.  The allegation regarding the date of manufacture and selling of used vehicle is nothing but a false claim of the complainant.  There was no prior sale to anybody or registration of the vehicle nor it was used by the second opposite party previously.  The allegations in para 14 and15 of the complaint are false.  There was no enrichment from the complainant's money as has been alleged by the complainant.  Thus, the reply version seeks for the dismissal of the complaint.

          5. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as CW1 and 16 documents have been filed which were marked as Exs.C1 to C21.  One Kaliaperumal, Motor Vehicle Inspector in the Transport Department, Pondicherry was examined as Expert and through him one document has been marked as Ex.X1.

          6. The State Commission formulated the following points basing on the pleadings set out by both the parties:

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer as per Consumer Protection Act 1986?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the claims made in his complaint?
4. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

7. On Point No.1:

          We are of the view that the complainant is a Consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the reason being that the complainant alleged that he has purchased the vehicle of the first opposite party from the authorised dealer of the first opposite party, namely, the second opposite party, which is not disputed by the opposite parties.  It is also the case of the complainant that the vehicle that has been purchased by him  has got inherent defects and that used vehicle has been sold to him.  In such event, at no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the complainant is not a Consumer.  Hence, we hold that the complainant is a Consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

          8. Point No.2:

          On Point No.2, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we are of the view that the car was purchased by the complainant  on 02.11.2012 and even according to the complainant he was using the car  and at times, he used to approach the second opposite party complaining about one problem or the other.  In fact, still, the car is with the complainant and it is not known whether the complainant is still using the car.  Had the complainant, without using the car, returned to the second opposite Party immediately after finding defects in the car, the prayer in Para VIII (a) in the complaint, namely, to recall the defective vehicle and to reimburse the amount of sale price with interest would have been awarded to the complainant, but unfortunately, from the date of purchase on 2.11.2012 the complainant was using the car.  Moreover, the complainant failed to establish by proper documents that the second hand car was delivered to him.  The reply version of the first opposite party clearly establish that there seems to be a wrong notion on the part of the complainant that the second opposite party has sold a second hand car to him.  Therefore, we are of the view that the prayer in Para VIII (a) of the complaint cannot be granted and the same is rejected.

          9. With regard to the prayer in Para VIII (d) viz. to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-  for Unfair Trade Practice is concerned, the statement made by the complainant in his complaint and Exs.C3 to C16 show that the car in question was  several times repaired by the second opposite party.  The complainant who has purchased a dream car was made to suffer several times on one problem or the other.  The numerous problems that had crept in the vehicle show that there is deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party.  Therefore, it is just and necessary to award a reasonable compensation to the complainant and for the claim made by him viz. Para VIII (b) and (c) in his complaint.  We are of the view that totally a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- shall be payable by the second opposite party to the complainant which will be just and reasonable.

          10. In view of the grant of such relief, another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the complainant in Para VIII (d) of his complaint is liable to be rejected.

          11. As far as the cost that was claimed by the complainant viz. a sum of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, we are of the view that it would be just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost to the complainant.

          12. Thus, the complaint is disposed of in the following manner:-

          a) The second opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service and mental agony faced by the complainant;

          b) a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded which is payable by the second opposite party to the complainant toward cost of this complaint;

c) The complainant is not entitled to seek for recall of the defective vehicle and for payment of Rs.36,05,153/- with interest from the opposite parties.

          13. Thus, the complaint is disposed of in the manner set out above.

Dated this the 27^th day of April 2018.

(Justice K. VENKATARAMAN)

PRESIDENT

(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

MEMBER

LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S WITNESSES:

CW1           02.04.2015           S. Paramaguru

CW2           21.10.2016           Caliaperumal, Motor Vehicle Inspector

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTYS' WITNESSES:  NIL

LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS:

Ex.X1         17.02.2016           Inspection Report marked through CW2

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTYS'  EXHIBITS:  NIL

(Justice K. VENKATARAMAN)

PRESIDENT

(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)

MEMBER