BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 14/06/2010

Date of Order : 26/03/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 347/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the facts of the complainant's case are as follows :

On 25-03-2009, the complainant purchased a car from the 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party. The complainant decided to purchase a car during March 2009. He had specifically sought for a 2009 model car, but the 1^st opposite party delivered a 2008 model car instead of the request for 2009 model. However, in the insurance certificate and in the registration certificate, the year of manufacture is shown as 2009. Since the complainant had faced some problems with the car, he decided to sell the same. In the mean time, an automobile mechanic inspected the car and revealed that the car was not of 2009, but was in fact of 2008 as per the engine and chassis numbers. The complainant caused to issue a lawyer notice to the opposite parties highlighting unfair trade practice committed by them and called upon them to replace the car. In reply to the lawyer notice, the 1^st opposite party responded by a letter stating that the complainant had never insisted for a 2009 model car. The opposite parties have deceived the complainant by handing over a 2008 model car while inducing the complainant to believe that it was a 2009 model car. There has been not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the 2008 model car with a 2009 model car and to reimburse the value of the car and also for getting compensation of Rs. 1 lakh from the opposite parties.

2. The version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties :

The complainant's vehicle was registered with the Regional Transport Authority, Muvattupuzha. In all documents relating to the said vehicle the model was shown as 2009, since the vehicle was 2009 model. The complainant had never requested to issue a 2009 model car, but only a brand new car. The statement of the complainant that the resale value of the vehicle 2009 model is lesser than a 2008 model is not correct. The value of the vehicle depends on the maintenance, condition and performance of the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

3. The defense of the 3^rd opposite party :

The 3^rd opposite party is not a necessary party to the complaint. Since the relationship between the 3^rd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party is that of principal to principal basis. The complainant does not have a case that the vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect. The demand for replacement of alleged vehicle or refund of the price of the vehicle is without any justification. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party.

4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The witness for the 3^rd opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the 3^rd opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. The points that came up for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the car with a 2009 model or to get refund of the price of the car?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh from the opposite parties?

6. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- It is not in dispute that on 25-03-2009 the complainant purchased a Maruthi 800 A/C car from the 1^st opposite party, which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party. Subsequently, the complainant got the vehicle registered at the Registering Authority, Muvattupuzha as per Ext. A3 Registration Certificate. According to the complainant, he specifically requested to deliver a car manufactured in 2009 and instead of delivering a car manufactured in 2009, the opposite parties delivered a 2008 model car. The opposite parties maintain that the complainant did not request for delivery of a car manufactured in 2009 instead he requested to deliver a brand new car. Ext. A1 is the invoice of the car, Ext. A2 is the insurance policy certificate, Ext. A3 is the registration certificate of the vehicle, all these documents state that the vehicle was manufactured in 2009. The above documents are the primary, preliminary and conclusive documents as far as a motor vehicle is concerned. The complainant claims that a mechanic inspected the vehicle and opined that the engine number and chassis number was manufactured in 2008, a personal opinion unsubstantiated having nothing on record to the contrary. Had the vehicle been manufactured in 2008, the Registering Authority could not have endorse the manufacturing year in Ext. A3 R.C. Book as 2009. In the above circumstances, we are of the firm view that the complainant failed to establish that the vehicle of the complainant was manufactured in 2008 except for a flimsy view of a mechanic he believes in. in the aforesaid finding, this Forum is only to dismiss the complaint. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 26^th day of March 2012

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========