O R D E R Sri.K.Vijayakumaran, President. (2) This is a complaint seeking a direction to the opposite parties to replace the car purchased under True Value Scheme from opposite party 2 with another car or to refund the amount with compensation, cost etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows. The complainant is an Ex-service man and he intended to purchase a Maruti Omni Van under Maruti True Value Scheme. He approached the second opposite party and bought a 1999 Model Maruti Omni Van bearing Reg.No.KL 02 P/8006 under the above scheme for Rs.1,20,000/-. The complainant has effected payment of the sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- in installments for which the second opposite party issued receipts. At the time of delivering the vehicle, the complainant was made to believe that the vehicle is in good condition. The opposite parties offered free service and (3) repair for the vehicle for one year. After some days of purchase the vehicle showed serious troubles and the complainant approached the second opposite party for curing the troubles. But the second opposite party did not repair the same. However, the second opposite party repaired the vehicle later charging Rs.12,818/- which was against the assurance given to the complainant under above scheme. On two more occasions also the vehicle had to be repaired and the complainant has incurred a total expenditure of Rs.20,950/- towards repair charges. When the complainant got expert opinion from his friends he has realized that the vehicle was not in good condition. When this was informed to the second opposite party they agreed to replace the vehicle with another one. Accordingly, the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the second opposite party. But the second opposite party failed to replace the vehicle or refund the sale consideration. The conduct of the opposite party amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. (4) The first opposite party filed version containing inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any consumer dispute between the complainant and the answering respondent. The complainant has no cause of action against this opposite party. The relief sought for in the complaint falls outside the ambit of Consumer Forum. The averments in Para 1 &2 are not correct and hence denied. The complainant did not buy the vehicle under Maruti True Value Scheme. The true value vehicle carries warranty for certain period and other terms and conditions set out in owner’s manual and service booklet being supplied to the buyer of true value vehicle. The complainant has concealed certain material facts. The vehicle in question met with an accident and the respondent No.2 carried out the repairs on paid basis against payment of Rs.12,618.29/- vide invoice dated:16.12.2004. The complainant has paid the price of the vehicle in three installments on 13.11.2004, 13.12.2004 and 26.02.2005. The complainant would have stopped the payment price of vehicle if (5) the transaction was truly under Maruti True Value Scheme. The complainant failed to produce any documents in support of his contentions that he bought the vehicle under the Maruti True Value Scheme. The averments in Para 3 are misconceived incorrect and hence denied. This opposite party has not agreed to replace the vehicle. This opposite party is not a party to the sale transaction. The complainant has no cause of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against this opposite party. The second opposite party is a dealer on principle to Principal basis under the dealership agreement executed between the opposite parties. This opposite party is not liable to jointly or severally with respondent no.2. Hence the opposite party press to dismiss the complaint. The second opposite party filed version containing, inter alia, that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. The Maruti True Value Scheme is an approved scheme of Maruti Udyog Limited and business is conducted as a joint venture by Maruti and the local dealers through out the country and the second opposite party has adopted the above (6) scheme. A Maruti True Value car should satisfy certain conditions viz; the first registration should have been in the respective State the owner should be the first or the second, it should have run more than one lakh kilometer and that the vehicle should not be more than ten years old. Any maruti car purchased by the Maruti True Value outlet but which does not satisfy any of the above said pre-conditions shall be classified as Non- True Value Car. The ultimate authority to decide whether a vehicle comes under Maruti True Value category or not is the maruti engineer. Such certified cars are eligible for owner’s mannual and service booklet containing warranty coupons and free service coupons. The Non- True Value Car will not get such benefits. The car bought by the complainant was never treated as Maruti True Value Car. The complainant has purchased a maruti true value certified omni van on 08.12.2003 and is a beneficiary in respect of the above said vehicle and he is fully aware of the difference between a maruti true value car and a Non- true value car. The complainant was fully ware that the car purchased by him is not a maruti true value car, as the same was originally registered at Pondicherry. The second opposite party (7) informed the complainant that this vehicle was purchased by some one later and brought it to the Kerala State and re-registered it with No. KL 02 P/8006. The delivery was effected by the second opposite party to the complainant on 14.11.2004. In this case, as against the normal practice of selling used cars on a cash down payment or undertaking of Finance Company in this case, the payment price of the car Rs.1,20,000/- was effected in three installments. The car met with an accident within a short span from the date of purchase. The second opposite party re-valued the vehicle and re-purchased the same from the complainant on 02.04.2005 for Rs.1,06,000/-, as the complainant was requesting repeatedly to re-purchase the same so as to tide over his tight financial condition. The second opposite party never made any commitment to free service to the complainant in respect of the above vehicle. The allegation contained in Para 2 of the complaint are false and hence denied. The second opposite party did not under take repairs or maintenance free of charges. It is the duty of the purchaser to carry out repairs and maintenance. There is no contractual obligations between the second opposite party and the complainant. The (8) Complainant should under take repairs and maintenance. The second opposite party has not assured the complainant that they are ready to give replacement of the vehicle. The vehicle was also not entrusted with the second opposite party on the basis of the alleged undertaking. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties. They are also not liable to pay Rs.20,950/- to the complainant being the alleged repair charges. Hence the second opposite party also prays to dismiss the complaint with their cost. This complaint was originally disposed by this Forum as per order dated: 27.01.2007 against which the opposite party filed appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as Appeal No.157/2007. The State Commission allowed appeal set aside the order of the forum and remanded the case for fresh disposal. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 on the side of the complainant. Exts P1 to P5 were also (9) marked. DW1 and DW2 are examined on the side of the opposite party and Exts D1 to D9 were marked. PW2 and DW2 were examined and Exts. D7 to D9 were marked subsequent the remand. points for consideration are : (1) Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? (2) Relief and costs. Points As a matter of fact there is no dispute that the complainant bought a maruti omni van bearing Reg.No.KL-2 P-8006 from the second opposite party. The contention of the complainant is that the above car was bought by him from the second opposite party under the Maruti True Value Scheme. But immediately after the purchase the vehicle developed complaints and so the same was entrusted with the second opposite party for repairs but contradictory to the agreement they refused to effect necessary repairs and so he had (10) incur an expenditure of Rs.20,950/- for carrying out frequent repairs to the vehicle. The definite contention of the opposite party is that the above car was sold to the complainant not under the Maruti True Value Scheme but under Non- true value scheme. It is argued by the opposite parties that for a vehicle to be included under the maruti true value scheme it should satisfy certain conditions and one of the main condition is that it should be a vehicle registered in that particular state itself. It is the case of the opposite party that the vehicle in question was originally registered in the Union Territory of Pondicherry with Reg.No.PY 01 – M 6377 and later this vehicle was brought to Kerala State and transferred in the name of one Lali with effect from 08.06.2004 and it was re-registered with present number on 10.08.2004 and therefore, this vehicle is not to be certified as a maruti true value vehicle. It is argued that only a vehicle certified under the Maruti True Value Scheme is eligible for owner’s manual and service booklet containing warranty coupons and free service coupons which were significantly absent in this case is obvious from the non production (11) of the same which would establish that it is not a maruti true value car. According to the opposite parties the vehicle was sold to the complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- and the delivery was effected on 14.11.2004 which is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the above sale consideration was paid as per Ext.P1 series receipts and as per receipt dated: 13.12.2004the complainant paid Rs.1000/- towards the expenses for effecting transfer of registration and other legal formalities. It is the case of the opposite parties that after the sale of the car it met with an accident and thereafter on the request of the complainant the second opposite party has repurchased the car on 02.04.2005 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,06,000/- on the request of the complainant to tide over his financial condition. It is worth pointing out in this context that in Ext.P1 series receipts dtd: 13.12.2004 it is clearly stated that the car was a Non- true value car. It cannot be believed that this aspect has escaped the notice of the complainant. If he was not satisfied that it was a non-true value car he would not have paid the last installment of it’s price as per receipt (12) dated: 26.02.2005. So it is obvious that the complainant was all along aware that the car purchased by him was a Non-true value car. According to the opposite party in the case of a Non- true value car they have no obligation to effect repairs free of charge and that they have never given any undertaking to the complainant that the repairs and servicing of the car will be rendered free of charge. According to the opposite parties after purchase of the car the complainant approached the second opposite party and informed that he wanted a financial assistance from a private lending agency and as the complainant was a customer of the second opposite party they arranged finance and the vehicle was hypothecated in favour of Krishna Financing Company and necessary endorsement in this regard was made in the registration certificate by the Registering Authority. Ext.D4 clearly shows that as per endorsement No.R4/01208/05/Q this vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant with effect from 23.12.2004 and that a hire purchase agreement was entered into in favour of Krishna (13) Financing , Pallimukku with effect from 08.01.2005. There is nothing to disbelieve the above entry as the same is made by the Regional Transport Authority in discharge of their public duty which clearly shows that this car was transferred in the name of the complainant with effect from 23.12.2004 and the hire purchase agreement entered into with effect from 08.01.2005.An entry regarding hypothecation can be made in the RC book with the knowledge and consent of the registered owner as the RC book would be in the absolute possession of the registered owner even assuming that the vehicle was entrusted with the opposite party 2 for repairs or sale. Therefore it is obvious that the complainant himself has entered into the hypothecation Agreement with the Krishna Finanicers and collected money, the quantum of which is not forth coming and now pleads ignorance bout the same. Again in Ext.D4 page no.11 the Regional Transport Officer has endorsed that the hire purchase agreement with Krishna Finance was cancelled and the vehicle transferred to one Navas with effect from 22.05.05. Such a transfer can be made only by the registered (14) owner signing necessary statutory forms. No owner would sign such statutory forms without getting the sale consideration. Even assuming that the signature in the statutory form is forged the entries regarding entering into financing and cancellation of financing in the RC book can not be made by statutory authorities without the knowledge and consent of the R.C.Owner as the R.C.book in the custody of the R.C.owner is produced before them. DW1 or PW2 can not produce the R.C book unless it is handed over to then by the RC owner. Complainant has not made any attempt to summon the RTO to disprove the veracity of the entries in Ext.D4. The veracity of Ext.D7 is seriously assailed by the complainant. It is argued that it s a forged document. If it is a fabricated one there is no explanation as to how an entry has come in Ext.D4 (page 11) regarding cancellation of the same. Ext.D8 shows that a sum of Rs.95,000/- was debited from the account of opposite party 2 on 06.04.2005 in the name of one Rajan. The entry in Ext.D4 page 11 further shows that the Hire Purchase Agreement was cancelled on 07.04.2005 by the Registering authority and the (15) cancellation can only be in pursuant to Ext.D7. It is true that Ext.D7 and 8 were produced belatedly only in 2007. But that is not a reason to doubt its credibility. In his argument note the learned counsel for the complainant in page no.9 has stated “ there will be a chance that without the knowledge of the complainant DW1 with the help of PW2 hypothecated the said vehicle with Krishna Finance and received Rs.1,06,000/- from the finance company and misused the same for his personal purpose. When the complainant entrusted the said vehicle with DW1 for replacement, he with out the knowledge and consent of the complainant sold the vehicle to somebody and thereby closed the loan account with Krishna Finance”. One is at a loss to understand as to how a vehicle can be sold without the knowledge and consent of the registered owner who has to sign the statutory forms and hand over the R.C.book . No prudent R.C.owner would hand over the R.C.book also when a vehicle is entrusted with a workshop for repairs or for sale. The complainant has no case either in the complaint or in the affidavit that he has handed over the R.C.book also to opposite party 2 when the vehicle was entrusted with opposite party 2. On a careful (16) perusal of the entire evidence in this case we are of the view that the case advanced by the complainant is not true or even probable. On the other hand the case of the opposite party that the complainant availed finance from PW2 and when the vehicle was with OP2 after the accident for sale OP2 closed the finance by paying the amount to PW2 evidenced by Ext.D7 and D8 and sold the vehicle to one Navas with the knowledge and consent of the complainant seems quite probable. We find that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party. Points found accordingly. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 31st day of August 2010. K.Vijayakumaran : Sd/- Adv.Ravi Susha : Sd/- R.Vijayakumar : Sd/- //Forwarded by Order // Senior Superintendent Date of Filing:30.06.2005 Date of Order: 31.08.2010 (17) INDEX List of witness for complainant PW1 - K.Shajahan Kasim PW2 - Rajan List of documents for complainant P1 - True value Receipt (4 in nos.) P2 - Invoice (4 in nos.) P3 - Advocate notice with postal receipt & Acknowledgment card P4 - Receipt dtd: 16.11.04. P5 - Vehicle Inspection Report P6 - Statement of accounts List of witness for opposite party DW1 - Manoj DW2 - Sreekumar List of documents for opposite party D1 - Bill dtd: 25.11.2004 D2 - Reply to the advocate notice D3 - Photocopy of certificate of registration D4 - Photocopy of duplicate book D5 - Photocopy of evaluation sheet of the vehicle D6 - Copy of job card D7 - No objection letter D8 - Accounts statement D9 - Registration particulars | 
