IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE     30^th  DAY OF JANUARY  2020

Present: -        Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

          Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

          Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member              

CC.No.237/2014

Shaji.S                                                                            :         Complainant

Sreenilayam(Changavila veedu)

Veliyam West P.O

Kottarakkara-691540

Kollam.

[By Adv.Maruthadi.R.Sreeraj]

V/s

1. The Chief Executive Officer/Authorized signatory :         Opposite parties

          M/s Sarathy Auto Cars

        (Authorized Dealer of Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd.)

       Pallimukku, Kollam-691010

        [By Adv.David Koshy]

2. M/s.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

        1,Nelson Mandela Road, Vasantha Kunju

          New Delhi-110070

FAIR  ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.

          The complainant had purchased a Maruthi Swift VDI Car from M/s Sarathy Auto Cars, Kollam the authorized dealer of Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., on 10^th January vide Tax Invoice No.VSL 13003287 dated 31.12.2013 (with back dated invoice to their advantage in getting quantity discount from M/s.Maruti).  The said purchase was effected through a vehicle mela arranged by the 1^st opposite party at Cantonment Maidan by the middle of December 2013 (on 15/12/2013) by exchanging complainant’s old Maruthi Zen (KL-07 AR 8579).  According to the complainant , 1^st opposite party had offered discount of Rs.15,000/- Plus Exchange Bonus of Rs.15,000/-, Govt.employee bonus of Rs.3000/- and lot of other benefit exclusive for the above mela.  Voucher indicates benefits worth Rs.31,500/- plus additional benefit for Govt.employees and also state price hike of Rs.10,000/- for Maruthi cars from January 1^st 2014.  The complainant’s old car was valued and priced at Rs.1,22,000/- plus free accessories worth Rs.5,000/-. The car was valued and priced at Rs.1,25,000/- by their True value during Onam August 2013).

          According to the complainant car was taken delivery on 10/01/ 2014  6 p.m  with advance payment of Rs.34909/- for vehicle and Rs.17550/- for accessories and complainant old car was given to the 1^st opposite party  with all documents.  In the mela the 1^st opposite party has projected price hikes for Maruthi cars in January

and March and offered Ex-showroom price of Rs.638537/- till price hike in January.  But actually price was lowered in the Financial budget of year 2014. According to the complainant the 1^st opposite party had offered an exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/-  as fixed benefit of mela but denied the same by stating that the same was inclusive of vehicle price of 1,22,000/- which was fixed for the old car of the complainant.  The opposite parties had offered total benefit worth Rs.31,500/- but  he received only Rs.15,000/- as discount.  However the opposite parties had given the tax invoice indicating Rs.30,000/-.

          The opposite parties had resold the complainant’s old car to a 3^rd person for an amount of Rs.1,36,000/-.  Without adjusting the non claim bonus in the insurance policy, of the old car,  the 1^st opposite party had charged Rs.18,719 as insurance premium of the new car.  If the 1^st opposite party had adjusted no claim bonus of the old car the amount would be 6500/- only but charged Rs.12,239/- towards insurance premium.  Another allegation of the complainant is that  the 1^st opposite party had charged Rs.3,950/- as handling charges.  But the  ex-show room price includes the handling charge.  The 1^st opposite party has charged Rs.17550/- towards the costs of the accessories but Tax invoice was given only for Rs.13728/-.  The opposite parties had offered Rs.3,000/- as Govt. employee bonus but they had given only Rs.1,500/-. Even though more than Rs.13500/- was charged for the music system, FM Radio connection was not made available.  Free Teflon coating and interior was agreed but only partial Teflon coating and interior were done.  The complainant had sent a letter dated 08.07.2014 to the 1^st opposite party.  No response from the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Another letter dated 01.08.2014 was also issued to the 1^st opposite party.  Instead of giving reply the 1^st opposite party has filed the complaint before the Eravipuram Police Station.  However the opposite parties had not given proper service to the complainant as agreed and offered and thereby committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The complainant has  appended a statement showing a total loss of  Rs.79,721/- due to the conduct of the 1^st opposite party. 

          1^st Opposite party resisted the averments in the complaint by filing version contending that complaint is illegal ,irregular, improper.  According to the  1^st opposite party there were 2 independent contracts one between the complainant and Maruti Suzuki True Value and other between the complainant and Sarathi Auto cars (the 1^st opposite party).  It is true that the mela was organized by the 1^st opposite party which was held at Peerangi Maithanam during the 12.12.2013 to 15.12.13 with the intend to sell Maruthi vehicles, and the complainant came to the mela with the old vehicle to avail free service as advertised by the 1^st opposite party through notice.  Thereafter complainant introduced himself as a Govt. employee in the state Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram.  He made several enquiries with the employees of the 1^st opposite party who were charge of the mela and thereupon the complainant after getting satisfied with the benefit offered by the employees of the 1^st opposite party entered into an agreement  with the 1^st opposite party to sell his old vehicle to Maruti True value in exchange for a Maruti Swift VDI vehicle.   As between the  MOU of complainant and Maruti True Value  the exchange of the old car was effected.  According to the opposite party benefits and privilege between Maruti True Value and complainant  were honoured by 1^st opposite party.   As per the MOU between complainant and Maruti  True Value the terms and conditions of the MOU will be effected at the time of sale of new vehicle.    The 1^st opposite party would contend that there is no privity  of contract between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party.  As per the non exchange offer the sale consideration was 6,97,822/- .  After the MOU between Maruti True Value and the complainant,  delivery of old vehicle was effected as per delivery sheet issued by the Manager of the Maruti True Value to the complainant with copy to effect registration of the old vehicle.   The 1^st opposite party would further contend that the exchanged old vehicle was in the name of the complainant . 1^st opposite party had surrendered the original RC book before the registering authority and they dispatched the same to the complainant .  The complainant is bound to surrender the original RC book back to the Maruti True value instead, the complainant had taken advantage of getting possession of original RC book and making  false claims blackmailing to extract additional amounts from Maruti True Value and 1^st opposite party.  According to the opposite party illegal and conciliatory attitude from the complainant, Maruti True Value could not proceed with the sale of old Maruti Zen which was purchased from the complainant under the MOU referred to above. 1^st Opposite party would further contend that the Govt.employee bonus was not Rs.3,000/- as alleged by the complainant it was fixed as per the information gathered from the internet and it was only Rs.1500/- which was paid to the complainant.  Since the price hike was not given effect, the complainant was not entitled to get any reduction of price of the vehicle which was sold during the 1^st  10 days of January 2014 and also there is no financial loss to the complainant since price of Swift VDI vehicle remain unchanged on the date of sale of said vehicle to the complainant.   No special offer was announced by the 1^st opposite party to anybody including the complainant for the alleged booking through the  mela.  

          1^st opposite party would further contend that as the complainant insisted to organize financial assistance for the purchase of new vehicle either from nationalized or scheduled bank or from private financial companies.  But on enquiry by the 1^st opposite party it was found that complainant was not eligible to get any loan from nationalized or scheduled bank due to the heavy liabilities reflected in the net.   According to the 1^st opposite party they had advised the complainant to take loan in the name of the complainant’s wife but the complainant was not amenable for the same.  At last due to the request of the complainant the 1^st opposite party has arranged loan from a private financial company and contends that finance for a vehicle for the customer is not the duty and the responsibility of the dealer.  According to the 1^st opposite party exchange bonus was not denied by them.  It is true that exchange bonus of  Rs.10,000/- was offered and agreed but the complainant was retaining the original RC book of the old vehicle which is sent by the registering authority and making false claims and for enforcing the same for only the purpose of extracting wrongful gain to the complainant and thereby to make wrongful loss to the 1^st opposite party.  According to the 1^st opposite party they are entitled to get handling charges and registration charges while the new car was purchased which was readily agreed by the complainant at the time of effecting the sale of the new vehicle.  The complainant is not entitled to get any refund in part or whole on account of registration charges and handling charges. 

          The 1^st opposite party would further contend that supply of accessories of new vehicle were an independent contract between the complainant.  1^st opposite party had given to the complainant all accessories which was sought at time of contract.  The FM radio was not among the requirements of accessories by the complainant as alleged, that the company had served all authenticated documents in accordance with the law relating to the sale of new vehicle, that complainant is attempting to get a blanket order from this forum against the 1^st opposite party which appeared to be public interest litigation which cannot be granted and under Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is not entitled to recover any amount nor the  1^st opposite party is liable to pay any amount as shown in the statement of account. The 1^st opposite party is entitled to get the original RC book relating to the old car which was purchased by Maruti True value from the complainant and upon surrendering the original RC book referred to above, the 1^st opposite party is ready and willing to give the retained amount of Rs.10,000/- as stated in the statement of Maruti True Value supplied by the Maruti True Value to the 1^st opposite party with copy to the complainant.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost and compensatory cost of  the 1^st opposite party.

          The 2^nd opposite party resisted the complaint by filing separate version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as define under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant did not enter into any contract for sale or hired any service for consideration with 2^nd opposite party. According to the 2^nd opposite party complainant had not paid any amount towards the price of vehicle in question to  2^nd opposite party. Hence the complainant is not a consumer as far as the sale of vehicle in question is concerned and the same is not maintainable against the 2^nd opposite party and liable to be dismissed.  2^nd opposite party would further contend that the complainant has failed to set out any specific allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence the present complaint is not maintainable against the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacture of Maruti  Suzuki  range of vehicles and does not sell any vehicle to any individual customer. The 2^nd opposite party sells/invoices the vehicles to its dealers under the dealership Agreement.  According to the 2^nd opposite party the dealers including 1^st opposite party sell the vehicles to their customers under their own invoice and sale certificate as per the terms and conditions settled between the dealer and individual customer.  The 2^nd opposite party is not liable for any act of omission or commission on the part of the dealer as the transactions of sale is independent between dealer and customer.  The complainant has not disclosed in what manner his allegation is covered by the term ‘complaint’ as referred to in Section 2 (1) © of the Act. In the instant case, there is no allegation covering one or more of the aspects referred to under Section 2 (1) (c) of the said Act and on this short ground alone, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. 

2^nd opposite party would further contend that the relief that can be granted by the redressal forums constituted under the Act are only those enumerated in clause (a) to (i) in Section 14(1) of the Act.  The relief thus asked for by the complainant fall outside the ambit of Clauses (a) to in Section 14 (1) of the Said Act and the complaint petition is liable to be rejected on this ground also. 

The present complaint is devoid of any merit.  The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the 2^nd opposite  party.  The complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint against 2^nd opposite party with malafide intention to obtain undue gains.  The complainant has no case of deficiency in service against the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party has neither committed unfair trade practice nor caused deficiency in service to the complainant as alleged.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for under the Act.  The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with cost.

     In the light of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice as alleged in the complaint?
2. Whether the complaint is entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
3. Reliefs and costs?

Evidence on the side of complainant consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ext.P1 to P17 documents.  Evidence on the side of the Opposite parties consists of the oral evidence of DW1.

The learned counsels for the complainant and opposite party filed notes of argument.   Heard both sides.

Point No.1 & 2

For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these two points are considered together.  The main grievance of the complainant against the opposite party is that though a discount of Rs.30,000/- was offered as shown in Ext.P1 invoice,  he has not been given  benefit of that much amount.  It is seen from Ext.P1 invoice dated 31.12.13 that   ex showroom price of the car is 6,38,576.70/- , discount granted is 30,000/-, total invoice amount is Rs.6,08,537/-. 

     According to the opposite parties the benefit offered to the complainant has fully given.  Ext.P3 is the notice published by Sarathi Motors (the 1^st opposite party)  together with Maruti and Suzuki were in  it is stated that in the case of the sale of Swift VDI a benefit of Rs.31,500/- would be given as discount.  Now  we shall consider whether that promise has been fulfilled by the opposite parties. It is seen from Ext.P1 invoice that Rs.30,000/- is allowed as discount and that 30,000/- has been deducted from ex showroom price.  The oral evidence of DW1 would also show that Ext.P1 document A\p-k-cn¨v ]pXnb hml\w hmZn¡v hnä-t¸mÄ hml-\-¯nsâ sam¯w hne-bmb 6,38,536.70/-þ cq]-bn \n¶pw 30,000/þ cq] Ipd-¨n-«mWv hm§n-bn-«p-Å-Xv.   

Though DW1 has been subjected to severe cross examination nothing materials has been brought out  to disbelieve the above version. In the circumstances we are inclined to believe that there is no merit in the above claim of the complainant.

  Yet another claim of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party offered an exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- during the mela.  But it was not given to the complainant.  The complainant would further claim that the opposite party had resold the complainant’s old car to the 3^rd person for an amount of Rs.1,36,000/. According to the opposite parties the complainant has sold his old car for a price of Rs.1,22,000/- and the said amount was adjusted towards the price of the new car.  The above contention of the 1^st opposite party appears to be incorrect.  Ext.P5 is the purchase note NTV exchange issued by Maruti True Value, Ayathil, Kollam wherein it is stated that they have purchased the old car belongs to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- in  exchange with  new Swift VDI in the name of the transferor they had transferred only Rs.1,20,000/- towards the value of new car.  It is further stated in Ext.P5 that the customer is eligible for a loyalty bonus of Rs.15,000/- and an amount of Rs.10,000/- is retained.  The above 15000+10000 is not seen paid to the complainant.  But according to DW1 though the price has been fixed at Rs.1,22,000/- the price of the old car is only Rs.1,05,000/- and Rs.15,000/- is exchange bonus and that fact was explained to the complainant and he understood the same.  But the above version is denied by PW1 and it is contrary to the averments in Ext.P5 document wherein it is stated that the price of the old car is Rs.1,20,000/- and loyalty bonus (exchange bonus) is Rs.15,000/-.  If the price of the old car is only Rs.1,05,000/- that fact ought to have been find a place in Ext.P5 document.  In the circumstance it is cristal clear that the  opposite party has denied exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- agreed and offered during the mela and the same would undoubtedly come under unfair trade practice.

It is clear from the available materials that if the no claim bonus is adjusted then the net insurance amount would be only Rs.5765/-.  The above version of the complainant is devoid of any merit in view of Ext.P8 insurance policy and Ext.P8&P9 policy documents.  As per Ext.P8 the total premium of the new car was Rs.18719/-.  No claim  bonus is not seen deducted from the total premium. However No claim bonus certificate or statement is not produced by the complainant.  How much is no claim bonus to be deducted if the vehicle  is sold to the 3^rd party is not pleaded and proved by the complainant.  In the circumstances we find no merit in the above claim of the complainant. 

The learned counsel for the  opposite party has vehemently argued and also included in the notes of argument that even though the vehicle was transferred to the 1^st opposite party dealer the complainant has retained the original RC Book arbitrarily.  Though several negotiations had been taken place in the presence of police officials the complainant has not surrendered the RC Book.  However the opposite  party is ready to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- retained and the complainant is not entitled to get any amount other than Rs.10,000/- and he is bound to surrender the RC Book up on receipt of Rs.10,000/. In view of the materials available on  record we find little force in the above contentions.  It is clear from the available materials  that loyalty bonus of Rs.15,000/- is due from the opposite party.  The 1^st   opposite  party  would  further  admit  that Rs.10,000/-  is retained by them.  Therefore it is clear that an amount of   Rs.15000+10000=Rs.25,000/- is due from the opposite parties to the complainant and the complainant is expected to surrender the RC Book of the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party by receiving Rs.25,000/-(15000+10000).  It is also brought out in evidence that the complainant has sustained much mental agony apart from financial loss.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation and also entitled to get costs of the  proceedings amounting to Rs.10,000/- under both heads.  The points answered accordingly.

In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

The  complainant is directed to surrender the RC Book of the old Maruti Zen car bearing No.KL-07 AR 8579 within 15 days  from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the opposite party and in such  event the opposite parties shall deposit Rs.35000/- with interest @9% p.a for Rs.25000/- with the next 30 days of  production RC Book and shall got released the RC Book from the Forum.

Dictated to the  Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the  30^th   day of  January 2020. 

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

Stanly Harold:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                     Senior Superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1                    :         Shaji

PW2                     :         K.R.Suresh

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1                  :         Tax/Vehicle&Charges Invoice dated 31.12.2013

Ext.P2                  :         Copy of  RC Book

Ext.P3                  :         Notice published by Sarathi Motors

Ext.P4                  :         Delivery receipt

Ext.P5                  :         Purchase note –NTV exchange

Ext.P6                  :         Customer request form

Ext.P7                  :         Copy of letter

Ext.P8                  :         Copy of certificate cum policy schedule

Ext.P9                  :         Copy of motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule

Ext.P10                :         Certificate dated 09.07.2015

Ext.P11                :         Copy of  letter dated 08.07.14

Ext.P12                :         Acknowledgement card and postal receipt

Ext.P13                :         Letter dated 01.08.14

Ext.P14                :         Copy of letter dated 07.11.14

Ext.P15                :         Acknowledgement card and postal receipt

Ext.P16                :         Copy of letter dated 24.11.2014

Ext.P17                :         Postal receipt

Witnesses Examined for Opposite parties:-

DW1                    :         Manoj

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya Rani: Sd/-

                                                                                    Stanly Harold:Sd/-

                                                                                    Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent