DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Tuesday the 28thday of February 2023
C.C. 605/2013
Complainant
Sumanlal M, S/o Kunhiraman Nair,
Manayil House,
Purakkad (P.O), Meladi (Via),
Kozhikode -673 522.
Opposite Party
The Manager,
Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd,
Maruthi True Value,
Civil station (PO), Wayanad Road,
Kozhikode-20
(By.Adv.Sri. Bijesh K)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
Lured by the advertisement made by the opposite party in the media, the complainant purchased a 2007 model Maruthi WagonR bearing registration number KL.56. 8484 from the opposite party. But the quality and stability of the vehicle turned out to be disappointing. Soon after the delivery of the vehicle, the complainant was forced to change the normal water with coolant from the radiator which arose out of the opposite party’s negligent use of ordinary water instead of coolant. Since the opposite party neglected to attend this work, the complainant had to take the vehicle to another workshop. He had to spend Rs. 535/- on this account, besides Rs.6,950/- for fitting new tyres. According to the complainant, without satisfactorily setting and found variations in the RPM the opposite party had taken an amount of Rs.5400/- together with Rs.300/- as petrol charge. The complainant had to change the clutch liner, clutch disk, axle boot, con bush, cut bush and bush change. The opposite party misrepresented that the vehicle was covered by insurance and was an accident free vehicle. Infact, on two occasions, insurance claim had been realised by the previous owners.
3. The complainant was deliberately cheated and there was false representation on the part of the opposite party. There was deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party. Hence the complaint seeking compensation of Rs.4, 00,000/- from the opposite party and also compensation of Rs.1, 00,000/- for the mental agony suffered.
4. The opposite party has entered appearance and filed written version denying all the allegations and claims made in the complaint. The opposite party is the true value division of the Popular Vehicles and Services conducting second sale of pre-owned cars. Usually the vehicles sold by the true value division will be having warranty of one year after its second sale. In order to provide the above warranty, all necessary repairs will be done and it was only there after the vehicles will be sold providing warranty. In the case of the warrantied vehicles, the customer will get free service in case any defect happens with in a period of one year.
5. The Opposite party is also selling used cars without providing warranty. In such cases, the vehicles will be sold in as is where condition as given by the previous owner. The complainant demanded and purchased a vehicle without warranty. In such cases, the customer will be informed that the vehicle is in as is where condition as it is received from the previous owner and the customer can conduct any check up by an expert technician before its purchase. In this case also, the complainant was provided with an opportunity and he had taken test drive. He has given an undertaking that he was convinced about the mechanical and body condition of the vehicle after test drive and all the future repairs are his responsibility. There was no misrepresentation or cheating as alleged. The opposite party never represented that the vehicle was an accident free vehicle. The allegation that water was used instead of coolant is denied. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is not liable or responsible for the repair work of the vehicle or to pay compensation. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or loss on account of any act or conduct of the opposite party. The complaint is an experimental one without merits and liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, as alleged?
(2). whether the claim for compensation is allowable? If so, what is the
quantum?
(3). Reliefs and costs.
7. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was let in by the opposite party. Exts B1 to B3 were marked.
8. Heard both sides.
9.Point No.1and 2: The complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The specific allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party deliberately cheated him by selling a vehicle suppressing material facts relating to the vehicleand also the defects of the vehicle.
10. In order to substantiate his case, PWs 1 and 2 were examined on the side of the complainant. PW 1 is the manager of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company. PW1 has deposed that the vehicle in question was involved in two accidents and insurance claims were allowed as per exhibits A1 and A2. The complainant, who was examined as PW2, has deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim and asserted that he was cheated by the opposite party by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts with respect to the vehicle.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that unfair trade practice and the deficiency of service stands proved through the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainants Exts A1 to A 14.It was pointed out that the complainant had to spend substantial amount for the repairs of the vehicle and he was put to mental agony and hardship due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that what was purchased by the complainant was a non-true value category vehicle and not a true value category vehicle and the vehicle was sold as is where condition as given by the previous owner. It was submitted that there was no misrepresentation or suppression of material facts as alleged and no deficiencyof service or unfair trade practice is established or proved against the opposite party.
12. The opposite party is the true value division of Popular Vehicles and Services conducting second sale of pre-owned cars. The complainant purchased a 2007 model Maruthi WagonR bearing registration number KL.56.8484 from the opposite party. Being a non-true value category vehicle, it is not having any warranty. PW 1 has also admitted in the cross examination that he has no case that the vehicle is having warranty. But PW 1 has claimed in the cross examination that it was a true value category vehicle. But his claim cannot be accepted in view of exhibit B1 undertaking executed by him. It is clearly stated in exhibit B1 that it is anon-true value category vehicle and not a true value category vehicle. Exhibit B1 is not disputed by the complainant. Thus, Exhibit B1 would cut at the very root of the case of the complainant that what he had purchased was a true value category vehicle.
13. For non-true value category vehicle, no warranty is provided and it is purchased as is where condition as given by the previous owner. It is admitted by PW 1 that before purchase, there was test drive and he was satisfied. Being a non- true value category vehicle, there is no warranty and the opposite party cannot be held liable for the future repairs. Moreover, exhibit B3 letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party shows that he was satisfied with the mechanical and body condition of the vehicle and that all the future mechanical and body works would be his responsibility. That being so, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for the future repairs or to compensate the complainant.
14. The allegation of the complainant is that there was misrepresentation and suppression of material facts by the opposite party. But the said allegation is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, exhibits B1 andB3 would show that the complainant was well aware of the fact that what he had purchased was a non-truevalue category vehicle and he was satisfied with the condition of the vehicle after test drive and had undertaken that future repairs and maintenance would be his responsibility. That being the position, no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite party as alleged.
15. To sum up, there is no proof of any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Consequently, the complaint must fail.
16. Point No.3:In viewof the finding on the above points, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the28thday of February, 2023.
Date of Filing: 18/12/2013.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of documents sanctioning insurance claim.
Ext. A2 – Copy of documents sanctioning insurance claim.
Ext. A3 – Pre Owned car booking form.
Ext. A4 – Delivery Receipt.
Ext. A5 – Cash receipt voucher.
Ext. A6 – Hi-Tech Maruthi Job Estimate dated 18-05-2013.
Ext. A7 –Cash bill dated 29-06-2013.
Ext. A8 Invoice No.491 dated 29 June 2013.
Ext. A9 – Invoice dated 23-07-2013 issued by popular vehicles & services Ltd.
Ext. A10 – cash bill from Souparnika Petroleum.
Ext. A11 – Cash bill no.508 dated 31-07-2013 of Malabar Maruthi Service Centre.
Ext. A12 – Cash bill no.532 dated 14-08-2013 of Malabar Maruthi Service Centre.
Ext. A13 – Cash bill no.564 dated 02-09-2013 of Malabar Maruthi Service Centre.
Ext. A 14–Newspaper advertisement.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 –Under taking executed by the complainant.
Ext. B2–Letter dated 13-05-2013.
Ext. B3–Letter dated 13-05-2013.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Anand C John, Manager of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company.
PW2 –Sumanlal M (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/- Assistant Registrar
