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.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of OP?
- 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