BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 06.04.2015

Date of Order : 29.02.2016

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 230/2015

Between

And

O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

The case of the complainant is as follows :- The complainant is working as a taxi driver and he had purchased a brand new car on 10.12.2014 from the opposite party at a price of Rs. 6,43,465/-. The complainant had sold out his old Swift Desire car for Rs. 3,58,000/- through the opposite party and the new car was registered as taxi by the R.T.O. Hence the complaint is eligible for subsidy for the above purchase. But he could not avail the subsidy due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party. The complainant had registered his new vehicle on 22.12.2014 and received registration certificate from the R.T.O. Office. The complainant approached the opposite party, within 13 days after the registration of the vehicle for processing the papers for the subsidy. The opposite party did not take any steps to get the subsidy amount sanctioned to the complainant and they told that time limit for applying for the same had already expired. The complainant alleged that opposite party had deliberately cheated him by selling an old stock vehicle and he also submitted that his friend has made a similar purchase of vehicle for the same price and he could avail the subsidy. Thus, the complainant is before us and seeking direction against the opposite party to pay to the complainant compensation and costs of the proceedings for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party - Kairali Ford Private Limited.

2. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party Company. The opposite party appeared before this Forum in response to the notice and filed their version contending as follows:-

The version of the opposite party is as follows:- The opposite party admits that complainant had purchased a vehicle in the name and style Ford Fiesta 1.4 Clxi Classic Diesel on 10.12.2014 for Rs. 6,43,465/-. The allegation that the opposite party cheated the complainant by selling an old stock vehicle is baseless and false. The complainant itself reveals that the manufacturing date of the vehicle is September, 2014, and this fact was made known to the complainant at the time of purchase itself. At the time of the purchase, the value of the vehicle was Rs. 6,82,465/-. The complainant sought offers which were not available for vehicle manufactured in the month of December. Subsequently the opposite party made a proposal of the above vehicle at a much lesser amount of Rs. 6,43,465/-. In order to avail the benefits offered by the opposite party the complainant himself chose to purchase the above vehicle after availing a reduction of Rs. 39,000/- from the total bill amount. The complainant had ample time to make application for availing subsidy. During the purchase of the vehicle itself complainant was told regarding the procedures and deadline date to make application to avail subsidy. The complainant had approached the opposite party much after expiry of the prescribed date, even then the opposite party directed the complainant to produce documents related to the vehicle which was also not produced. The opposite party had acted and served with all bonafides and there was not even an iota of ill intention to trouble their valuable customer. The complainant herein has not approached this Forum with clean hands. No cause of action has arisen for the petitioner to file this complainant and the petitioners is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on his side. No oral evidence was adduced by opposite party and Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and Counsel for the opposite party.

4. The issues that came up for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency

in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the

opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation

   and cost of the proceedings from the opposite party?

   iii. Relief and costs ?

5. Issue Nos. (i) and (ii) : - Ext. A1 registration certificate of the disputed vehicle goes to show that the vehicle is registered on 22.12.2014 and register number of the vehicle is KL – 11-AX-3076. On going through the Ext. A1, it would show that the disputed vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 06.12.2014 and model description of the vehicle that Ford Fiesta Classic 1.4 Duratorq TD. Admittedly complainant purchased the said vehicle from the opposite party on 06.12.2014. Ext. A2 is the contract carriage permit certificate and Ext. A3 is the Fitness Certificate of the disputed vehicle. Ext. A4 insurance policy cover note and Ext.A5 is the taxi registration certificate of the above said vehicle. The complainant had produced his driving license and badge issued by Government of Kerala as Exhibit A6. Admittedly complainant is a taxi driver by profession and he had purchased the vehicle from the opposite party on 06.12.2014 and vehicle registered on 22.12.2014 as taxi vehicle. According to the complainant, the opposite party cheated the complainant by selling an old stock vehicle without his knowledge. He is also alleged that due to the negligence of the opposite party, the complainant had lost benefits of the subsidy. The complainant had approached to the opposite party for subsidy benefits within 13 days after the registration of the vehicle. The opposite party did not take any steps for getting the subsidy to the complainant and they stated that date for applying for subsidy benefits had already expired. The opposite party stated in their version that the complainant itself reveals that the manufacturing date of vehicle is September 2014 and this fact was known to the complainant during the time of purchase itself. The opposite party further stated that total value of the vehicle was Rs. 6,82,465/- and complainant sought offers which were not available for vehicles manufactured in the month of December. After a discussion with the complainant, the opposite party made a proposal to the complainant for reduction of Rs. 39,000/- from the total bill amount for the old stock vehicle. The above said proposal was accepted by the complainant and he availed the benefits offered by the opposite party and the complainant himself chose to purchase the above vehicle for an amount of Rs. 63,43,465/- after availing a reduction of Rs. 39,000/-. In the total bill amount Ext. B1 price list of Ford Classic date on 09.12.2014 evidently prove the contention of the opposite party. During the purchase of the vehicle the complainant was told regarding the procedure to avail subsidy but he approached the opposite party much after the expiry of the prescribed date without necessary documents. At the time of the cross-examination complainant deposed that he could not remember the exact date of filing the application to the opposite party for the subsidy, further he stated that he did not give three sets of notarized copy of the R.C. Book to the opposite party even when the opposite party directed to produce the same. In that case we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On perusal of the Exts. A1 toA6 we could not find any substantial evidence to believe the contention raised by the complainant. In the absence of contrary evidence, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is not sustainable and he is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for from the opposite party.. We find that there is no merit in the complaint filed before this Forum by the complainant. Hence the complaint is dismissed as a case of no merit.

6. Issue No. (iii) ;- We find the issue Nos. (I) and (ii) in favour of the opposite party, we therefore refrain from awarding compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint filed by the complainant is found without any merit and it is therefore dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of February, 2016.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Forwarded / By Order

Senior Superintendent

Date of despatch of the Order :

By Hand / By Post :

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

Exhibit B1 :: Price list