DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 31^st day of December, 2008

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G. Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.101/2006

Vijayan.V.Anand,

Principal,

BSS Gurukulam Higher Secondary School,

Alathur,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.Raghu)

Vs

1. The Chairman ,

Maruthi Udyog Ltd.,

11^th Floor, Jeevan Prakash,

25^th Kasthurbha Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi – 110 001.

(By Adv.Biju.M.John & Krishnaprasad.S)

2. The General Manager,

Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

Authorised Maruthi Dealer,

Opp. South Gate of Shipyard,

M.G.Road, Cochin – 15.

(By Adv.Sujana.S & Krishnaprasad.S)

3. The Manager,

Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

Chandranagar,

Coimbatore Road,

Palakkad. - Opposite parties.

(By Adv.Sujana.S & Krishnaprasad.S)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Complainant purchased one Maruthi Baleno LXI petrol driven car manufactured by the 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorised dealer of the 1^st opposite party. Vehicle was supplied by 3^rd opposite party, the branch office of 2^nd opposite party at Palakkad. At the time of booking of the vehicle on 10/02/2005, the dealer informed that the model of the vehicle will be of 2005. But the certificate of registration of the vehicle shows that the year of manufacture is 2004. The fact was informed to the 2^nd and 3^rd

opposite parties. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties assured the complainant that as soon as they get the cut off chassis number they will immediately give intimation to the RTO, Alathur. But they failed to give the same to the Regional Transport Officer, Alathur. Subsequently the dealer informed the complainant that the vehicle will fall only in the year 2004 model and expressed their inability. Inspite of repeated demands and requests the opposite parties did not take any steps either to rectify the defect or replace the car. A registered lawyer notice was caused to opposite parties for which no reply was sent. According to the complainant, the act of opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency of service. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties either to replace the vehicle with the latest model or pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation being the depreciation in value of the car and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

2. Opposite parties filed version. The contention of the 1^st opposite party is as follows. 1^st opposite party was not a privy to the sale transaction between the complainant and 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and hence not responsible for the deficiency of service of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are dealers under a dealership agreement on principal to principal basis and hence 1^st opposite party is not responsible for the alleged act of omission or commission of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

3. The contention of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties is that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the complainant agreed to the condition that all disputes arising out of the bill will be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Cochin only. Opposite parties admit the purchase dt.10/02/2005. But denies the statement that the opposite parties assured that the model of the vehicle will be of 2005. The year of manufacturing of vehicle will be certified by RTO based on cut off chassis number received from 1^st opposite party every year and this cannot be changed by anyone. On the basis of the information from the 1^st opposite party to the Transport Commissioner, Kerala he might have issued circular to all the RTO's in Kerala. Therefore, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties cannot give any commitment with regard to the year of manufacturing of the vehicle. Being dealer, the opposite parties had performed their duty and issued certificate to the complainant for the purpose of registering the vehicle and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

4. Evidence adduced consists of the proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6 on the side of complainant. None of the opposite parties filed affidavit and no document was marked on their side. Documents produced by RTO office is marked as Ext.C1.

5. Matter was heard. We have carefully gone through all the relevant documents on record. The grievance of the complainant is that he has specifically demanded for 2005 model and opposite parties assured to deliver the same. But when the registration certificate is issued, the month and year of manufacture is seen 2004. According to 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties they have not given such an assurance. They have issued certificate to the complainant for the purpose of registering the vehicle and had performed all the duties of a dealer. According to the opposite parties 2 and 3, year of manufacture is certified by Regional Transport Officer based on cut off chassis no. received from the 1^st opposite party every year and this cannot be changed by anyone else. The grievance of the complainant is that he has specifically demanded for 2005 model of the vehicle, but when he received the registration certificate the year of manufacture is seen as 2004. Ext.A1 shows that the said vehicle was purchased on 10/02/2005. It is evident from the registration certificate (Ext.A2) that year of manufacture of the vehicle is that of 2004. 1^st Opposite party places the liability upon the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, where as according to opposite parties 2^nd and 3^rd they have not given such an assurance. Other than mere pleadings in the version, none of the opposite parties has adduced evidence by way of affidavit or filed any document in support of their contention. Even though Ext.A1 does not reveal the fact that the complainant has specifically demanded for 2005 model, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of the complainant because an ordinary prudent man booking a vehicle in the year 2005 expect delivery of the vehicle manufactured in the same year. Ext.C1 series is the documents pertaining to the registration of the vehicle submitted before the Regional Transport Officer's office. In the said document issued by the dealer, i.e. Form No.21 Sale Certificate it can be seen that month and year of manufacture is noted as January 2005. From this it can be inferred that dealer has assured 2005 model of the vehicle to the complainant.

6. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that unfair trade practice is exercised by all the opposite parties in not delivering the vehicle as promised and hence the complainant is entitled for compensation. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

7. In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied

within one month from the date of communication of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

8. Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of December, 2008

Sd/-

Smt.Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Smt.Preetha.G. Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Invoice

Ext.A2 – Certificate of Registration

Ext.A3 (Series) – Copy of the lawyer notice issued to 1^st opposite party with postal receipt

and acknowledgement

Ext.A4(Series) - Copy of the lawyer notice issued to 2^nd opposite party with postal receipt

and acknowledgement

Ext.A5(Series) - Copy of the lawyer notice issued to 3^rd opposite party with postal receipt

and acknowledgement

Ext.A6 – Copy of the R.C of similar car

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Forum's exhibit

Ext.C1 Documents produced from RTO office

Costs (allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost.