BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No. 74/2004<br /> Dated: 31..05..2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> Dr. P.S. Syamala Kumari, Satchit, Nalumukku, Pettah – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By Adv. Sri.Ajayakhosh)<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.The Hyundai Motor India Ltd., A-30, Mohan Co- operative Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi – 110 044.<br /> (By Adv. Sri.Rakesh Thampan)<br /> 2.The Senior Manager, M/s. Hilton Hyundai, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram – 10.<br /> (By Adv. Sri.Mohan DAs Pai)<br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 29..04..2008, the Forum on 31..05..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that she had purchased a Hyundai Sandro Car from the opposite parties in the year February, 2001. At that time, the complainant was convinced by the opposite parties that the year of manufacture is 2001. But when the vehicle was registered as per the Motor Vehicles Act, the date of manufacture is stated as 2000. Since the vehicle of 2000 & 2001 have different values, at the time of exchanging the vehicle, the value of the vehicle was reduced to 1,00,000/- because of 2000 model. Though the matter was informed to the opposite parties, they have not compensated the loss sustained to the complainant and the act of the manufacturer and dealer is illegal and there is deficiency in service on their part and hence this complaint claiming compensation from the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 2. The 1st opposite party had filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is time barred as per Sec. 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act and this complaint deserves to be dismissed on the ground of Limitation alone. The car in question was invoiced by the 1st opposite party to 2nd opposite party with whom it operates on principal to principal basis on 3rd February 2001. The car of the complainant bearing Vin No.MALAA51GRIM 144170 and registration No. KL 01 U 4505 is of a model 2001 and not 2000 as is being contended by the complainant. The said car was retailed to the complainant by 2nd opposite party vide invoice No.667 on 13th February 2001. The column No.8 of the said sale certificate shows month and year of manufacture of the car in question as 'February 2001'. Hence the complainant's allegation of the car having year of manufacture as 2000 is totally wrong. The error, if any in the year of manufacture as may have been reflected in the registration certificate will have to be rectified by the said RTO, who may have issued the certificate of registration. It is submitted that a car being a 2000 or 2001 year model is merely a psychological perception only. All cars are excellent piece of machinery, which uniformly carry a warranty of two years from the date of its sales invoice to the respective customers irrespective of the year of manufacture. It is denied that there is any deficiency of service or any illegality as alleged. It is reiterated that the car in question is a 2001 model and not 2000 as contended by the complainant. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The 2nd opposite party in their version contends as follows: The complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer. The complaint is barred by limitation. The 2nd opposite party dealer sold a car to the complainant on 13..02..2001 and the same was registered and took delivery by her. She is neither the owner nor possessor of the car at the time of filing this complaint. It is true that the month and year of manufacture was stated as February 2001 in the sale certificate and other related papers, as informed by the manufacturer. It is averred that normally during January and February when the sale takes place, the letter showing cut of chasis numbers of the previous year would be delivered to RTO's to make proper entries in RC Book. Such letter was handed over to RTO at the end of February immediately on receipt from 1st opposite party. In case any chasis number pertains to current year is wrongly entered as previous year, the same will be got corrected with the RTO by showing the letter of cut of chasis No.issued by manufacturer. This is very common/regular practice. The complainant was so adamant and did not co-operate for effecting such corrections and the allegations contrary to are denied. This opposite party has not cheated/misrepresented or suppressed anything. No gains as alleged was made by the 2nd opposite party and the same is not possible also. In fact the correction could be carried out then and there. The 2nd opposite party was/is ready to help the complainant to get this done. The complainant is not entitled to any benefits as alleged. There is no lapses or laches on the part of 2nd opposite party. On the contrary complainant was negligent and has a negative attitude, so that the correction of entry could not be effected then and there. For the omission or commission of the complainant, the opposite parties should not penalised. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost of the 2nd opposite party.<br /> 4. The complainant and opposite parties have adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. No document marked on behalf of the complainant and the opposite parties.<br /> 5. The issues that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is a consumer as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act?<br /> (iii)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties leading to unfair trade practice?<br /> <br /> (iv)Reliefs and costs?<br /> 6. Points (i) & (ii) : The purchase of the car is admittedly on 13..02..2001. The allegation of the complainant is that at the time of purchase in the year 2001, the complainant was made to believe and convinced by the opposite parties that the said car is of 2001 make. But in the RC book the year of manufacturing is noted as 12/00 and hence the complainant has come before this Forum for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, since they have intentionally delivered the car manufactured on 12/00 as that of 2001 and realised the value of 2001. According to the opposite parties, this complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. Having heard the parties and having considered the averments made in the complaint, it is clear that the cause of action had accrued to the complainant on the date of purchase of the car which is 13..02..2001. At this juncture the pertinent point to be noted is that the present complaint has been filed on 11..02..2004 which is much beyond the period of 2 years of the accruel of cause of action. Moreover, though some documents are seen produced by the complainant, it has not been marked. A petition for condoning the delay has also been filed by the complainant, but unfortunately is not seen persued by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. As per Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay. Sub Section (2) of the Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides for entertaining a complaint after the period specified in Sub Section (1) on the complaint showing sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. Though the complainant has filed a petition to condone the delay in filing the complaint, it has not been brought to the notice of the Forum which the complainant was bound to and hence appropriate order not passed. As such the complaint is found to be hopelessly barred by time. The complainant should have initiated proceedings by filing a complaint within a period of 2 years from the date of purchase of the car and the complaint is highly belated one in as much as the purchase of the car took place in the year 2001, February. Therefore, the claim for compensation filed on 11..02..2004 by the complainant on the basis of the purchase of the car made by her on 13..02..2001 is beyond the period of limitation, which cannot be entertained by this Forum. Moreover complaint has to be based on consumer dispute. It is not clear to us as to how it would be said that the complainant is a consumer qua opposite parties. Complainant has admitted that the car has been sold out and she is no more the owner of the car. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party had submitted that if the original RC book is produced, this opposite party is ready to help the complainant to get the bonafide correction done. But the complainant's counsel submitted that the complainant is no longer in possession of the vehicle since it has been sold out. In such circumstance, the complainant has failed to prove that she is a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act and has been unable to throw any light on this aspect of the matter.<br /> <br /> 8. For the foregoing discussions, this Forum finds that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time thus deserves to be dismissed on that sole ground.<br /> 9. In the above circumstance points 3 & 4 requires no consideration.<br /> Complaint therefore is dismissed being barred by limitation.<br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 31st day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.<br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br />