Kerala

Kannur

CC/8/2019

Dhijin.K.K - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Pioneer Cars Private Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.Pradeep Kumar

31 Oct 2023

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KANNUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/8/2019
( Date of Filing : 19 Jan 2019 )
 
1. Dhijin.K.K
S/o Sasidharan.K.K,Subha Nivas,Olavilam.P.O,Kannur.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager,Pioneer Cars Private Ltd.,
Pioneer Cars Private Ltd.,Koduvally,Nettur,Thalassery,Kannur.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Sajeesh. K.P MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 31 Oct 2023
Final Order / Judgement

SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,  seeking direction against the  OP to refund  Rs.7,70,000/- and take back the old used car which is delivered to complainant together with 9% of interest from the date of purchase and  also pay Rs.50,000/- as  compensation for the  mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to the act of the OP.

Complaint in brief :-

   According to the complaint, on 25/7/2018  complainant  purchased a brand new car from OP after exchanging the old car of complainant.  The complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- to OP after delivery , the price of old car.  The OP made complainant to believe that the car was manufactured in  the year 2018 but to the surprise of complainant , he came to  know  that the car was manufactured in the year 2017 January after the receival of R.C,  The OP practiced unfair trade practice towards complainant by giving old car instead of a newly manufactured one as demanded by the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

         After filing the complaint, commission has sent notice  to  OP.  OP received the notice and  entered appearance before the commission and filed their version accordingly.

Version of   OP in brief:

    The OP denies the entire  averments  made by complainant in the complaint except those  specifically  admitted . The purchase of car was admitted  by OP.  The OP contended that brand new vehicle cannot be sold on the day or month which it was manufactured as it has to undergo various tests and legal process.  The vehicles manufactured need not be sold in the very  same year.   The OP is only a dealer.  Moreover , OP contended that they never practiced any unfair trade practice because the complainant was provided with the copy of sale certificate, insurance policy and all vehicular documents which  all  show that the car was manufactured in the year 2017.  The OP never represented that the car was manufactured in the year 2018.  The complainant has been using the car right from the day of its purchase.  The complainant was well informed regarding the year of invoice and tax invoice .  The complainant made a complete defamatory statement that the OP sold old car instead of a new car to complainant.   Hence there is no unfair trade practice on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

       Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

  1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of  OP?
  2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The  complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A4.   Ext.A1 is the tax invoice,  Ext.A2 is the copy of  temporary certificate of registration issued by Motor Vehicles  Department,  Ext.A3 &A4 are the repair order issued by Peeyem Hyundai.  The    complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1.    No document produced from the side of OP.  The OP  adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as DW1.  OP filed  argument notes.

   Let us look  into the  evidence placed  before the commission to answer the issues  raised.  As there is no dispute with regard to the purchase of car, no detailed discussion on this aspect is necessary.  The dispute arise with regard to the  delivery of  old car instead of newly manufactured one.  Here, OP agrees with the averment  of complainant  as the car delivered to complainant manufactured in the year of 2017, but they contended that it was a normal practice and it was known to complainant but according to complainant and Ext.A2 which is a speaking evidence, the manufacturing  month  and year is stated as January 2017 but the other exhibits like Ext.A1 which is the tax invoice, no where it is stated that the car is manufactured in the year 2017.  But, OP claims that the tax invoice reveal the prior knowledge of complainant with regard to the manufacturing  date.  The OP contended that sale letter which was not produced by any of the party, tax invoice which was marked as Ext.A1 etc were sufficient  document  reveals the prior knowledge of complainant with regard to the manufacturing date. But the evidences stated by OP does not reveal such claim.  Moreover, during the  cross examination  DW1 specifically admitted that the  car delivered to complainant is 1 ½ years old one.  The complainant contended that he replaced 4 alloy wheels, but the Exts.A3& A4 failed to reveal the date and hence the lack of proper evidence, this commission is not in a position to assess the exact loss. No other evidence before the commission to prove that the car sustained any kind of  manufacturing or other  defects and also no evidence brought by complainant to prove that the car  he purchased from OP comes under the category of used car.  Here in this case it is apparent that  OP delivered old car(ie  1 ½ year old)  to complainant without any sort of intimation.  In M/s Goldrush Sales and Services  vs. Rajiv Shukla & Ors( 2016 2 CPJ (NC) 275)  National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission  held that “ supply of old vehicle to the complainant is entitled to get compensation”.

     Hence the commission came into a conclusion that opposite party practiced unfair trade practice  by delivering  1 ½ year old manufactured car  to complainant and  there by complainant is entitled to get compensation for mental agony and hardship. So the OP is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation  to the complainant.  As there is no other evidence to show that the car has any other defect including manufacturing defect. No other relief  is order by this commission.

               In the result complaint is allowed in part, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation  for mental agony and hardship suffered by complainant and also pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days  of receipt of this order . In default the amount of Rs.50,000/- carries interest @12% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against  opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-Tax invoice

A2- Temporary  R.C

A3&A4- Repair orders

PW1-Dhijin.K.K  - complainant

DW1-Srutheesh.G- witness of  OP.

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sajeesh. K.P]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.