This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the reliefs to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards repairs of defective used car and to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs towards damages for causing mental agony to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards expenses on the following averments:

          The complainant purchased a used car bearing Registration No. AP 05 BA 5404 from the 1^st O.P on 22-5-2013 for a sum of Rs.47,700/- and after the vehicle was purchased the mechanic of 1^st O.P checked the same and declared that the vehicle is in condition and advised the complainant to purchase the same without any hesitation.  The complainant having believed his words purchased the said vehicle from the 1^st O.P at Visakhapatnam and the said vehicle was run properly for one month and there after it started giving trouble and made the complainant to attend to its repairs by incurring more than of Rs.1 Lakh.  Since the defect in the vehicle was not rectified, the complainant had to run to the showroom of O.Ps to get the defect rectified but of no avail.  As the men of O.Ps are in dereliction of their duties and as there is deficiency in service on their part the complainant had to spend huge amount for the repairs of the vehicle and as the O.Ps did not get the defect in the vehicle rectified he suffered mental agony and was constrained to file the complaint for the above said relief. 

          The 1^st O.P filed counter and the same was adopted by the 2^nd O.P.  The O.Ps traversed the allegations made in the complaint and have averred that they did not give any warranty to the complainant at any time to attend to the repairs to the car and their men did not insist him to purchase the vehicle and that the complainant has purchased the vehicle after he got tested by a testing driver and he having satisfied with its condition he purchased the same. 

          It is averred that the men of O.Ps were not in dereliction of their duties and as there is no warranty to get the defects in the vehicle rectified and as there are no bonafides in the complaint the same is liable to be dismissed.

          In furtherance of complainant’s case the chief affidavit of complainant is filed and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 are marked on his behalf.  Per contra the O.Ps filed the affidavit evidence of R.W.1 and did not get any documents marked on their behalf.  Both the parties have filed their respective brief written arguments and their counsel also submitted oral arguments.

          Perused the material placed on record. Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for ?

          As per complainant he purchased the vehicle bearing registration No. AP 05 BA 5404 for a total consideration of Rs.47,700/- believing the words of mechanic of O.P.1 who told that the vehicle is in condition and to purchase the same without any hesitation.  It is his further contention that the vehicle run properly for a period of one month and there after it started giving trouble and as such he spent more than Rs.1 Lakh towards its repairs and that he suffered mental agony and discomfort also.

          In the counter filed by the O.Ps their mechanic did not advise the complainant to purchase the vehicle and the complainant purchased the vehicle after his test drive voluntarily and to his satisfaction and addressed a letter to that effect on 22-5-2013.  As seen from the respective stands taken by the parties to this case it is clear that the complainant has purchased the above said car from the 1^st O.P for a total consideration of Rs.47,700/-.  Ex.A.4 and A.5 documents are very much important as they reflects the total price for which the vehicle was purchased and to the liability of the respective parties after purchase of the vehicle under the said documents.  Ex.A.4 is the copy of non true value vehicle booking sheet issued by 1^st O.P.  Ex.A.5 is the copy of delivery challan issued by 1^st O.P and both the documents are dt.22-5-2013 since the above said documents are filed into the Forum by the complainant and as the O.Ps did not dispute about the contents of the above said documents there is no need to examine the author of the said documents to prove its contents.

          As per terms and conditions of Ex.A.4 the vehicle was sold to the complainant in and as it is condition without warranties and free services and the booking is valid only for 5 days and if the same is cancelled the amount of Rs.5,000/- would become non-refundable.  As seen from the contents of Ex.A.5 the complainant has received the above non true value vehicle in and as it is condition without any warranty and free services with all relevant documents to his satisfaction.

          As per Sec.91 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.

          As per clause 4 of Ex.A.5 the vehicle is not a Maruthi true value as certified vehicle and there is no warranty / free service from Maruti true value.  It is not the case of complainant that he subscribed his signatures on Ex.A.4 and A.5 without knowing its contents or that he was forced or coerced to execute the said documents.  Hence the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the above said documents.  As we have already stated supra the complainant has received the above non true value vehicle in and as it is condition without any warranty and free service to his satisfaction.  In his complaint it is clearly averred that the said vehicle was run properly till one month and afterwards the trouble was started and for its repairs he spent more than one lakh.  If the above said contention is believed to be true, the contents of cash credit bill dt.29-5-2013 must be false.  Under Ex.A.4 and A.5 which are dt.22-5-2013 the vehicle was purchased and if it was run properly for one month the bill dt.29-5-2013 must be a false one.  In some of the bills there are corrections and the complainant has not explained as to who made the said corrections and when they were made.  The complainant did not examine the authors of above said bills to prove its contents.  Even if it is believed that after one month of purchase of above said vehicle it gave trouble and the complainant spent more than Rs.1 Lakh in view of the contents of Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5, the O.Ps are not liable to compensate the same.  Hence in the above said facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is devoid of merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs.  

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 9^th day of March, 2015.

Member                                                           President

C.C. 45 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1                                                                               

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Office copy of Lawyer’s notice dt.17-6-2014
2. Ex.A.2 Postal Ack.,
3. Ex.A.3 Postal Ack.,
4. Ex.A.4 Copy of Non-True Value Vehicle Booking Sheet
5. Ex.A.5 copy of Delivery Challan for Non-True Value car
6. Ex.A.6 Copy of Certificate of Registration
7. Ex.A.7 Cash / Credit Bill issued by Sri Rajarajeswari Mechanical works dt.4-3-2014.

For O.P:-   NIL                                                                                                                                                                                                                President.