SMT. SYEDA SHAHNUR ALI, PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

In short, case of the Complainant, is that he booked one Tata Vista LS Quadra Jet vehicle with the OP No. 1 on 30-05-2014 and made an advance payment of Rs. 88,950/- for this purpose.  At the time of booking, the OP No. 1 assured the Complainant that the manufacturing year of the vehicle would be 2014.  On 04-06-2014, the OP No. 1 handed over a delivery challan to the Complainant, where the manufacturing year of the vehicle was mentioned as 2014.  Allegedly, after taking delivery of the vehicle, on scrutiny of the Tax Invoice, the Complainant noticed that he was actually delivered a vehicle of 2013 make.  The vehicle has been registered in the name of the Complainant in the month of July, where also mfd. of the vehicle has been mentioned as 2013.  It is also further alleged that although the Complainant drew the attention of the OPs to the said anomaly, it did not yield any positive result.  Finding no other alternative, Complainant filed the instant case.

OP Nos. 1&2 contested the case by filing WV.  It is contended by these OPs that during negotiation, they did not make any such commitment to the Complainant that they would deliver a 2014 make vehicle to him. Once the negotiation got over, a Tax Invoice, showing details of price, discount offered by these OPs was issued on 03-06-2014 being Tax Invoice No. 1076.  It is further stated that a delivery challan was also handed over to the Complainant.  However, it is asserted by these OPs that a bona fide mistake crept in the said handmade delivery challan, where the mfd. of the vehicle was inadvertently mentioned as 2014 although in the tax invoice, the mfd. was correctly mentioned as 2013.  The vehicle in question was insured with the United India Insurance Co. and the policy document was handed over to the Complainant, where too the mfd. of the vehicle was mentioned as 2013.  The vehicle was registered in the name of the Complainant, where also the mfd. of the vehicle was clearly stated as 2013. It is alleged that although the Complainant was fully aware  of everything, he kept mum for 7 months and raised the issue through his Ld. Lawyer for the first time on 14-01-2015.  Terming the mistake as a bona fide one, they prayed for dismissal of the case.

Case of the OP No. 3, on the other hand, is that the Complainant was all along aware of the fact that he would be delivered a 2013 make vehicle for which he was offered a discount of Rs. 33,013/- on the quoted price and he gladly accepted such offer.  The Tax Invoice, as well as the Sale Certificate, copies of which were handed over to the Complainant, made no bones of the fact that the vehicle in question was indeed manufactured in the year 2014.  This OP too denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the case.

The moot point for consideration is, whether or not the Complainant is entitled to any relief, as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

We have heard the arguments at great length and perused the documents on record carefully. Be it mentioned here that none of the parties called in question the authenticity of the photocopies of documents submitted by the other side.

The dispute hovers around the manufacturing year of the vehicle.  The Complainant has come up with the case that he was deceived by the OPs, who allegedly reneged on their commitment of delivering a 2014 make vehicle to him.  On the other hand, it is asserted by the OPs that they never ever made any such commitment to the Complainant.  Instead, the Complainant readily agreed to take delivery of a 2013 make vehicle and also availed of a hefty discount over the quoted price and now, on a second thought, he has filed the instant case with an ulterior motive. 

With a view to find out the inherent truth, we have minutely watched the intricate details pertaining to the vehicle as mentioned in the hand-made delivery challan issued by the OP No. 1 on 04-06-2014 vis-à-vis other documents, viz., photocopies of Tax Invoice dated 03-06-2014, insurance certificate, smart card, sale certificate. 

Significantly, on a comparison of the photocopies of Tax Invoice, Smart Card, and Insurance Certificate vis-à-vis handwritten delivery challan dated 04-06-2014, we find that, save and except the mfd. of the vehicle, there remains complete harmony insofar as the DNA of the vehicle, viz., chassis no., engine no., is concerned. As we know, chassis no. of a vehicle happens to be a unique no., simply on account of mentioning of a different mfd. in the delivery challan, it cannot be said that the OPs sold a different vehicle to the Complainant than what was meant by such delivery challan. We do appreciate that discrepancy of any sort in vital documents like delivery challan is not desirable.  However, at the same time, it is also a fact that to err is human.  Insofar as the delivery challan dated 04-06-2014 was handwritten, the possibility of human error cannot be completely ruled out, at the same time the Tax Invoice dtd. 03-06-2014 based on which the complainant made payment of the vehicle, it very clearly mentions the year of manufacture as 2013, but the complainant is harping on the handmade delivery challan dtd. 04-06-2014.  Accordingly, without sufficient cogent evidence to prove otherwise, merely on account of a single discrepancy, lest the same may lead to miscarriage of justice, we do not deem it wise to suspect the wisdom of the OPs. 

It is claimed by the Complainant in his petition of complaint that he booked the vehicle in question on the assurance of the OP No. 1 that it would deliver a 2014 make vehicle.  Unfortunately, no cogent documentary proof, viz., agreement paper, booking document is made available before us by the Complainant to corroborate his claim.  On the other hand, we find that he took delivery of the vehicle in question within five days of booking the same.  As we know, it takes a reasonable time to deliver vehicles of current manufacturing date by the dealers to their customers.  No documentary proof is advanced from the side of the Complainant to show that this particular model of current mfd. was readily available with the dealer in question at the material point of time, yet he intentionally supplied a 2013 made vehicle.

By putting his signature on the delivery challan dated 04-06-2014, the Complainant confirmed receiving delivery of the vehicle in question in good condition.  Now, from the documents on record, it transpires that a Lawyer’s notice was served upon the OP No. 1 in this regard on 14-01-2015, i.e., 7 months after taking delivery of the vehicle.  We fail to understand, why it took so long to realize the virtue of agitating the issue with the OPs.  We must not forget that delay often brings with a whiff of irrelevance.  Such prolong delay on the part of the Complainant does raise eyebrows. 

Although it is claimed by the Ld. Lawyer of the Complainant in his notice to the OP No. 1 dated 14-01-2015 that another letter was sent in this regard in the month of September, 2014, surprisingly, no copy thereof is placed on record from the side of the Complainant to corroborate such claim.  On the other hand, it is stated by the OPs that they received the first communication from the side of the Complainant on the vexed issue only in the month of January, 2015.  Thus, in absence of cogent documentary proof, we see no reason to place any reliance on such claim of the Complainant. 

We also find it bizarre that despite discovery of alleged act of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the Complainant went ahead and got the vehicle registered in his name.  He definitely owes an explanation, if he indeed felt let down by such act of the OPs, why did he decide to swallow the bitter pill silently at that juncture.  No satisfactory explanation, most surprisingly, is assigned from the side of the Complainant to justify his action.

It is claimed by the OPs that they offered a discount of Rs. 33,013/- on the quoted price to the Complainant since he agreed to take delivery of a 2013 make vehicle.  It is a fact that the Tax Invoice on record does not specify the exact reason of giving such discount to the Complainant.  However, at the same time, it is also true that the Complainant has not countered the OPs by spilling the beans in unequivocal terms, i.e., whether the discount was given to him by the OPs as a part of any special or promotional offer. 

In the light of our aforesaid findings, we see no good reason to cast any shadow on the propriety of the OPs simply on account of an anomaly as discussed hereinabove which in all likelihood appears to be a human error.

Last but not the least, in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act, the mfd. of a vehicle per se does not make it old as the life of a vehicle starts with the registration of the vehicle with the Registering Authority.  That apart, the Insurer also insured the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 4,99,061, which was the full value of the vehicle and no depreciation was charged on account of the vehicle being manufactured one year ago.  Since the wear and tear comes into force once on road, the Complainant did not suffer any loss on this score too. Also, no such case is made out from the side of the Complainant that the vehicle in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect or he experienced any discomfort using the vehicle on account of its age. 

In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no cogent ground to hold the OPs guilty of any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice in any manner and accordingly, feel inclined to dismiss the present complaint petition.

The instant consumer case, thus, stands rejected.

Hence,

ORDERED

that C. C. No. 45/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.  Parties do bear their respective costs.