BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 173/2005 Filed on 02.06.2005<br /> Dated : 15.07.2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> T. Edward Samuel, T.C 11/1717, Charachira, Kowdiar P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> (By adv.B. Haridas)<br /> Opposite party:<br /> <br /> The Manager, Essco Automobiles, T.C 25/1086-1, Elansa Towers, Manorama Road, Model School Junction, Thycaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> (By adv. V. Bhuvanendran Nair) <br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 25.06.2008, the Forum on 15.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that he had purchased an Ambassador car from the opposite party on 13.09.2004 by paying an amount of Rs. 357000/-. At the time of choosing the car, the Odometer reading was 164 km and the complainant was told that the above reading was due to the fact that the car was brought by road from Ernakulam. According to the complainant, the manufacturers deliver the car in trucks to the dealer with zero odometer reading. But on the date of delivery, i.e; on 16.09.2004 the car had covered 757 km and the reason told was that the car was brought by road from Madras. The dealer has used the car for the company purpose almost covering the distance for the first service. The complainant took the car under protest. He took the car because of urgency to purchase the car and also he had remitted the prescribed fee for registration, taxes and other expenses to the RTO and Insurance company. The complainant had demanded the rental charges for the distance covered by the car, but there was no response which lead to the filing of the complaint. <br /> <br /> The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: There is no grievance caused to the complainant by the service of the opposite party. It is not true that the odometer reading was 164 km when the complainant choose the car. The odometer reading was 757 km at the time of delivery and the complainant was aware of this and had purchased the car with utmost satisfaction. This opposite party has showrooms all over Kerala and based upon the customers choice and demand with regard to model, colour etc. the vehicles have been pick up from one place to another and from one showroom to another. Due to this, odometer reading happened so and as a sincere dealer without any latches and ill motive, recorded the actual reading as it is in the service records in order to get service benefit and the complainants had already obtained that free service benefits. There was no protest made by the complainant as alleged which is only a false allegation. The said vehicle was never used by this opposite party for any commercial purpose or any business purposes and there was no need for using it. The opposite party had made a reply to the notice send by the complainant and revealed the true facts. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs to this opposite party. <br /> <br /> Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P10. DW1 and DW2 were examined on the part of the opposite party and marked Ext. D1. <br /> <br /> The issues that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?<br /> Point (i):- The grievance of the complainant is that, the odometer reading of the new car purchased by him showed 757 km at the time of delivery and the complainant alleges that he has been delivered an used car. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the odometer reading, of the car at the time of delivery to the complainant, was 757 km. At this juncture the explanation given for the same by the opposite party has to be looked into. According to the opposite party, the vehicle in dispute was not used by them as alleged in the complaint. As this opposite party has showrooms all over Kerala, the vehicles are taken from one place to another and the opposite party has further contended that the odometer reading as 757 has been truly recorded by them as a sincere dealer. It is a known fact and a common practice that the odometer reading is adjustable and if at all the opposite party wanted to adjust it they could very well make it '0' and deliver it to the customer. But the odometer reading as 757 km at the time of delivery goes to show the bonafide of the opposite party. Now, we have to consider whether the above distance covered by the new car is justifiable. The complainant has alleged that he had seen the odometer reading as 164 km at the time of choosing the car. This allegation has not been proved by means of any evidence. There is nothing on record to prove the said allegation except the pleading. Hence we are not in a position to accept the same. The opposite party contends that the distance of 757 km so happened that, the vehicle was taken from Ernakulam yard to the Calicut branch. DW2 has deposed that the vehicles are run by the dealers on the road and based on the customers requirements as to the colour, model etc. the vehicles are taken from one branch to the other and he further deposes that, the odometer reading of a vehicle which is taken from Ernakulam to Calicut and from there to Thiruvananthapuram would be around 750 km. DW2 has not been cross examined by the complainant, hence his deposition stands unchallenged. Hence we are inclined to accept the same. Moreover, the complainant does not have a case that the vehicle had any problem due to the above acts of the opposite party. The complainant has no dispute with regard to the free service benefits. The complainant has not produced any document to prove that he had raised any objection at the time of taking delivery of the car. If at all the complainant had any grievance with regard to the odometer reading, he could very well take the vehicle under protest, which in this case has not been done. <br /> <br /> For the foregoing discussions, this Forum is of the view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. <br /> <br /> Point (ii):- In the above circumstance, the complainant is found not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed. <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<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, this the day of 15th July 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD President<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 173/2005<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> <br /> PW1 - Edward Samuel<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Original receipt No. 419 dated 14.09.2004 for Rs. 357000/- from ESSCO Automobiles. <br /> P2 - Original Proforma Invoice No. 716 dated 13.09.2004 for Rs. 367984/-. <br /> P3 - Copy of letter dated 24.09.2004 issued by the complainant. <br /> P4 - Photocopy of letter dated 18.11.2004 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. <br /> P5 - Photocopy of letter dated 25.01.2005 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. <br /> P6 - Photocopy of letter dated 04.04.2005 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. <br /> P7 - Original acknowledgement card dated 19.05.2005 addressed to the opposite party. <br /> P8 - Postal acknowledgement card showing the registered letter received by the opposite party. <br /> P9 - Postal acknowledgement card dated 29.01.2005 showing the registered letter received by the opposite party. <br /> P10 - Photocopy of pre-delivery Inspection card issued by the opposite party with odometer reading 757 kms. <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> DW1 - P. Sadasivan Pillai<br /> DW2 - Arul Jaisingh<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> D1 - Copy of reply notice addressed to adv. Haridas dated 06.06.2005 <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />