By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:
Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a vehicle from the opposite parties on 19.05.2010. Register number of the vehicle is KL 12 E 3966 Ape Auto 3 Ds Passenger Autorikshaw. At the time of purchasing the vehicle opposite party No.1 told that the vehicle is brand new one. At the time of delivering the vehicle the officials of the opposite party No.1 made believe that the model of the Autorikshaw was 2010 and it was launched in the market very recently. After delivering the vehicle complainant brought this vehicle before the Regional Transport Office authorities for registration. At the time of registration the complainant understood that the said vehicle was not a brand new one. The manufacturing date of above mentioned autorikshaw is in December 2009. After knowing the fact, the complainant approached to the opposite party No.1 and submitted his grievances and they assured to the complainant that they would consult with opposite party No.2 and there after they would replace the vehicle. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.1 for replacement of the vehicle but opposite parties No.1 and 2 not ready to replace the vehicle. The complainant is a driver by profession and he is the only bread winner of his family, he purchased this autorikshaw for his livelihood. Due to the acts of the opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony and caused to financial loss and damages. The said act of opposite parties are deficiency of service from their part for which the opposite parties are to compensate the complainant. Hence it is prayed that to replace KL 12 E 3966 autorikshaw and give a new one to the complainant and to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation.
2. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 appeared and filed their version. In the version of opposite party No.1 it is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle KL 12 E 3966 from the opposite party on 19.05.2010. The allegation in the complaint that at the time of purchase this opposite party has submitted that the vehicle is a brand new one is not correct and it is subsequently denied. The vehicle is a new one but it is manufactured during the end of 2009. The allegation that at the time of delivery the officials of the opposite party has made believe that the autorikshaw was 2010 model is not correct. The model of the above autorikshaw happened to be in December 2009 and within a period of one month the new year 2010 began. After registration of the above vehicle the complainant came to the opposite party and complained that the year of model is 2009 and not 2010 and intimated his non satisfaction. Since the model happened to be during the end of 2009 and the year of sale is in 2010 the complainant and the opposite party negotiated and settled the matter by giving a cashless discount of Rs.3,660/- for model changing. The vehicle sold to the complainant is in fact new vehicle and the warranty for the vehicle will be for a period of 8 months from the invoice date. The above complaint is filed by suppressing material facts and mislead the Forum to make a gain out of it. The above complaint is filed only for the purpose of grabbing money from the opposite parties. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.
3. The 2nd opposite party also admitted the purchase of the vehicle on 19.05.2010. He also denied the allegation in the complainant that at the time of purchase this opposite party has submitted that the vehicle is brand new one. He also admitted that the above vehicle is manufactured during the end of 2009 and the vehicle sold to the complainant within a period of 6 months. This opposite party has never informed the complainant that the above vehicle wasmanufactured in the year 2010. After registration of the above vehicle the complainant came to the opposite party and complained that the year of model is 2009 and not 2010 and intimated his non satisfaction. Since the model happened to be during the end of 2009 and the year of sale was in 2010 the complainant and the opposite party negotiated and settled the matter by giving a cashless discount of Rs.3,660/- for model changing. There is no merit in the allegation that the above vehicle is not a brand new one. The above complaint is filed by suppressing material facts and mislead the Forum to make a gain out of it. There is no need to replace the vehicle, the vehicle is in good running condition and there is no defects of any kind to the vehicle. The complainant is not entitled for any damages and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. There is no financial loss or mental agony to the complainant. Hence it is prayed that the Forum may dismiss the complaint with the compensatory cost to the opposite parties.
4. Considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1 :- To prove the complainant's case he filed his proof affidavit. In the proof affidavit he stated as stated in the complaint. He was cross examined by the opposite parties. Ext.A1 and A2 documents are also produced to prove his case. Ext.A1 is the copy of the ledger account of opposite party No.1. It shows that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,27,525/- between 15.05.2010 to 24.05.2010. Ext.A2 is the copy of the Registration Certificate book of vehicle Number KL 12 E 3966.
6. To prove opposite parties case the Manager of opposite party No.1 is filed his proof affidavit and cross examined by the complainant and Ext.B1 to B4 are also marked to prove his case. Ext.B1 is the cash payment voucher dated 22.06.2010 for Rs.3,660/-. It was denied by the complainant. Ext.B2 and B3 are the job cards of vehicle No. KL 12 E 3966. Ext.B4 is the true copy of the history check list in respect of vehicle No. KL 12 E 3966. On perusing Ext.B4 it is clear that the vehicle ran 56.629 Kilometers as on 31.01.2012.
7. There is no dispute regarding the sale date of the vehicle and opposite parties admitted that the year of manufacture (Model) is 2009 but the vehicle is sold to the complainant on 19.05.2010. The opposite parties admitted that they have given back Rs.3,660/- into the complainant as discount for the model changing. But it was denied by the complainant. No steps has been taken by the opposite parties to compare the signature in Ext.B1 with the signature of complainant. Hence we presume that the complainant has not signed in Ext.B1. It is clear that the vehicle sold to the complainant on 19.05.2010 is 2009 model. The opposite parties are also admitted that the complainant approached opposite parties and he informed his dissatisfaction for the same. But the opposite parties has not replaced the vehicle. It is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
8. Point No.2 : The complainant has purchased the vehicle on 19.05.2010, so he entitled to get a new vehicle manufactured during 2010 or afterwards. On perusing Ext.B2 to B4 the complainant is running the vehicle and doing services. It covered 56,629 km as on 31.01.2012. The complainant has entitled to get a new vehicle manufactured in 2010 or afterwards. He is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.2,000/- from the opposite parties. At the time of giving new vehicle the opposite parties are entitled to take back the vehicle already sold by them to the complainant.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to take back the KL 12 E 3966 autorikshaw and give a new autorikshaw manufactured in 2010 or afterwards. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- ( Rupees Two Thousand Only) as compensation. This is to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 27th February 2012.
Date of Filing:26.09.2011.
