By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

Complaint filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The gist of the case is as follows :- The Complainant purchased a Maruthi Zen car KL- 07 BC/6190 from the 5^th Opposite Party on 5.09.2007. The Complainant has purchased the car believing that it was 2006 model. On the R.C of the car, the year of manufacture was 2006 and 5^th Opposite Party represented that it was of 2006 model.

2. When the Complainant brought the car before the Maruthi dealer for an exchange they said that the car is 2005 model and will have a reduced value of Rs.75,000/-. On enquiry the Complainant found out that Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have joined hands to register the vehicle as 2006 model. Registering of a 2005 model vehicle as 2006 is unfair trade practice and the Complainant has suffered loss to the extend of Rs.75,000/-.

3. So the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.75,000/- towards the loss sustained by him and also Rs.10,000/- towards his mental pain and suffering.

4. 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party filed version. Opposite Party No.1 has stated in their version that there is no previty of contract between the 1^st Opposite Party and the Complainant. The Complainant is not a beneficiary of any service rendered by the 1^st Opposite Party. No part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The allegation that the 1^st Opposite Party has sold the car as 2006 model is not correct. The 1^st Opposite Party has issued sale certificate stating that the car is of 2005 model for obtaining temporary R.C in the name of the 3^rd Opposite Party. The insurance policy issued to the 3^rd Opposite Party also shows the year of manufacture as 2005. According to the manufactures of the car, the price difference between 2005 and 2006 model Zen car is only between Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000/- depending on the conditions of vehicle, number of owners and milege of vehicle. So the 1^st Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the Complaint.

5. The 2^nd Opposite Party in his version stated that they have registered the vehicle on the basis of the sale certificate issued by the 1^st Opposite Party and they had no intension of manipulating the year of manufacture as 2006 as the petitioner states.

6. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and document were marked as Ext.A1 to A5. One document which was called for on the petition of the Complainant from the 2^nd Opposite Party was marked as Ext.X1. 1^st Opposite Party was examined as OPW1, and documents were marked as Ext.B1 and Ext.B2.

7. Thus the matters to be decided are :-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief.

8. Point No.1. The 2^nd Opposite Party have stated that they have registered the vehicle as per the sale certificate (Form No.21) issued by the 1^st Opposite Party. But they have not produced the document and submitted that they could not trace it out. OPW1 clearly stated that

the vehicle is 2005 model and there is price difference for 2005 and 2006 model. 2005 model vehicle was registered as 2006 model. On examination, OPW1 has stated that Form-21 is issued in triplicate. One copy is with the dealer. 1^st Opposite party has not produced this document to show that there is no deficiency on their part in issuing from-21 with correct information. The vehicle was registered as 2006 model instead of 2005 model. It is clear that the 1^st Opposite Party is the party who gained in this matter. It is true that there is no direct dealing between the Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party. But it is natural that owner at any time is the beneficiary of registration of a vehicle. Here the Opposite Parties No.3,4 and 5 has sold the vehicle as if it is 2006 model. The Complainant is the only looser in his case. The 2^nd Opposite Party in their version has stated that the Maruthi Udyog Ltd., Regional Office has issued a letter to the Transport Commissioner, Trivandrum stating that the Zen cars manufactured in 2006 year starts with the Chasis No. 863689. In the same letter they have stated that due to sequencing of

vehicles in the production line, there might be a few vehicle with chasis number greater than the above number that might have been produced in 2005 and there might be a few vehicles with chasis number less that the above which might have been produced in 2006. Opposite Party No.1 have not stated that this aspect was not brought to the notice of them by the manufactures. For the above said reasons Point No.1 is devaded against the 1^st Opposite Party.

9. Point No.2. Though the Complainant has stated that one dealer of Maruthi and a mechanic openioned that there is a price difference of Rs.75,000/- between 2006 and 2005 model vehicle, he has not examined them or produced any document in this aspect. However, 1^st Opposite Party has stated in their version that even according to the manufacturer, M/S Maruthi Udyog Ltd, the price difference between 2005 and 2006 model Zen Cars is only between Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- depending on condition of the vehicle, numbers of owners and milege of the vehicle. No evidence regarding this aspect is brought before the forum. But it is general knowledge that an year difference will make price difference of minimum Rs.30,000/- and the Complainant is found entitled for it.

Hence the Complaint is partly allowed and the 1^st Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) to the Complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order. The 1^st Opposite party is also directed to pay interest on this amount to the Complainant at the rate of 10% from the date of the order till payment.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30^th day of April 2009.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER I : Sd/-

MEMBER II : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant :

PW1. Hamza Complainant

Witnesses for the Opposite Party :

OPW1. Rajesh Gangadharan Branch Manager, Popular Vehicles.

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Photo copy of registration

Certificate

A2. Original Agreement

A3. Insurance Policy

A4. Registered Lawyer notice dt. 1.10.2007

A5 Series. Postal receipts.

Witness for the Opposite Party :

B1. Policy copy

B2. Tax invoice.

X1. Copy of B register