KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.46/2023

JUDGEMENT DATED: 10.04.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.74/2021 of CDRC, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

APPELLANTS:

(by Adv. Bimal V.S.)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

          This appeal is filed by the complainants in C.C.No.74/2021 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short) challenging an order dated 07.04.2022 dismissing the complaint.  The complaint was filed on the following allegations:

2.       The 2^nd complainant is the son of the 1^st complainant.  The respondents/opposite parties are the officials of various motor companies.  The 1^st appellant owned a Maruti Swift car.  The appellants wanted to purchase a Renault Triber car.  For the purpose, they contacted M/s T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons, the dealer at Paravur, Alappuzha.  Thereafter, the 8^th respondent visited the house of the appellants and explained to them the various features of the car.  He offered to exchange their old car for a new one and also offered an exchange value of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) for the Swift car. 

3.       In July 2020 the appellants went to the show room and met the 6^th and 7^th respondents and discussed the matter.  Thereafter they booked a car on 12.08.2020 through online.  The car was purchased on 20.08.2020 for Rs.6,57,900/-(Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred) which was the price of the vehicle.  The total amount paid by the appellants, inclusive of the expenses for its registration amounted to Rs.8,45,392/-(Rupess Eight Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Two).  Though the entire amount was paid on 20.08.2020 the vehicle was delivered only after a week, i.e. on 28.08.2020.  While going through the records of the vehicle it was noticed that the vehicle was not a brand new one but was manufactured in February 2020, six months prior to the date of sale.  The vehicle did not have a fresh/new appearance.  It looked dirty/shabby.  The paint was blurred on the back portion of the body at the time of delivery.  It appeared to be a used vehicle.  It had run 242.8km according to the metre reading.  When the above aspects were brought to the notice of the 8^th respondent, he advised them to inform the Manager.

4.       At the time of its delivery on 28.08.2020 itself there were complaints to the vehicle.  When it was reported to the dealer, they were asked to bring the vehicle to the workshop.  The relay was replaced in the workshop.  However, problems developed subsequently also, which according to the appellants are due to manufacturing defects.  There were sounds from the engine and the gear box and there was a constant vibration.  Eventhough the dealer was informed of the defects, there was no response.  Though the appellants requested for replacement of the defective one with a new vehicle, their request was turned down.  The amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) offered as exchange bonus was also not granted.  The appellants therefore approached the District Commission complaining that they had been provided with a used car with manufacturing defects, thereby cheating them.  Their conduct amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Therefore, they claimed refund of an amount of Rs.8,25,392/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Two) being the amount collected from the appellants, with interest @15% per annum from 21.08.2020.  They also claimed the amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) offered as exchange bonus to them, along with interest and a further amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs) as compensation for providing them with a used car with manufacturing defects and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs) as costs.

5.       The complaint was contested by all the respondents.  Respondents 1, 4 and 5 filed a common version.  They contended that the appellants were not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act for short).  The appellants had booked the car and taken delivery thereof, after being fully convinced of the features of the car and expressing full satisfaction.  There is no merit in the contention that there was inordinate delay in delivering the car.  The car was booked on 20.08.2020 and the same was delivered on 28.08.2020 within a week of the booking.  At that time, the pandemic situation was prevailing throughout the country and restrictions had been imposed by the Central/State Governments even in opening the dealership.  Therefore, the delay of one week in delivering the car cannot be said to be inordinate or wilful.  The outlet at Alappuzha was not permitted to be opened at that time and therefore the vehicle was delivered from the Mavelikkara office, to the residence of the appellants.  The allegation that the paint of the car was blurred and that it was a used car are baseless and without merit.  The car delivered to the appellants was one received from the manufacturer and was at no point of time used by any other person as alleged by the appellants. 

6.       The allegation that the car was having manufacturing defects was denied.  There was a complaint about the relay system which was duly attended to under warranty and was replaced.  It was not a manufacturing defect.  There was no sound from the engine or gear box as alleged.

7.       With respect to the exchange bonus, the stand in the version was that, at the time of purchase of the car the appellants had no car standing in their name.  The car bearing registration no.KL 32 F 4400 for which the appellants had sought exchange bonus had been sold and stood registered in the name of Smt. Soumya, W/o Dasan w.e.f.07.08.2020.  At the time of booking the car on 20.08.2020 by the appellants, they were not the owners of the old car.  Therefore, they were not entitled to the exchange bonus.  The claim of the appellants for compensation and other amounts were baseless.  Therefore they sought for the dismissal of the complaint. 

8.       Respondents 6 and 7 filed a separate version contending that they had no personal dealings with the appellants other than in the course of discharge of their official duties.  They contended that they cannot be made liable for the losses alleged by the appellants.  They adopted the version filed by the other respondents.

9.       The parties went to trial on the above pleadings.  The 1^st appellant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exhibits A1 to A13 documents.  The 6^th respondent was examined as RW1 and Exhibits B1 to B4 documents were marked on the side of the respondents.

10.     After close of evidence, the case was heard.  The District Commission considered the contentions of the parties in the light of the evidence on record and found that the claim of the appellants was without any basis.  Therefore, the complaint has been dismissed.

11.     According to the counsel for the appellant, the District Commission has seriously erred in dismissing the complaint.  The evidence on record has not been properly considered or appreciated by the District Commission.  The District Commission has placed reliance on technical aspects to find that the claim of the appellants was without any basis.  Therefore they seek interference with the judgement in appeal.

12.     This appeal is posted before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel for the appellant at length.  We have also considered the contentions advanced before us carefully.  The first contention put forward by the appellants is that, there was inordinate delay in delivering the vehicle.  Admittedly the appellants had booked the vehicle on 20.08.2020.  But at that time, the Covid 19 pandemic was spreading all over the country and restrictions had been imposed on the functioning of all commercial establishments like that of the respondents.  The vehicle according to them was manufactured in Chennai and the same was delivered to the house of the appellants on 28.08.2020 in spite of all the restrictions.  Therefore, as rightly held by the District Commission, we are not satisfied that there was inordinate delay in delivering the vehicle.

13.     The second contention is that, as per records the vehicle was seen manufactured in February 2020, six months prior to the delivery.  According to the respondents, the vehicle was manufactured in the factory in January and it had to be transported to their dealership at Alappuzha.  During the pandemic period, movement of goods and passengers were restricted.  The delay according to them was attributable to all the above factors.   Considering the situation that was prevailing at the relevant time, we are not able to accept the contention of the appellants that what was delivered to the appellants was not a brand new car.  The District Commission has considered the above aspect in detail and has placed reliance on Exhibit B2 which is the feedback form signed by PW1.  With respect to the seven points for which the answers had to be indicated, the customer has ticked as “completely satisfied” and the remaining three points he has ticked “mostly satisfied”.  It is clear from the above that the allegations regarding the appearance of the vehicle with faded paint and other defects are made as an afterthought.  The issue has been considered correctly by the District Commission.  We do not find any grounds to take a different view of the matter.  The other allegation that the vehicle had run 242.8km at the time of its delivery, cannot be considered to be a serious deficiency.  The same can only be attributed to the distance covered for the purpose of conveying the vehicle to the appellants.

14.     Though the appellants have a case that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defects, they have not been able to adduce any evidence in support of the said contention.  There is no expert evidence available, pinpointing the actual defect, if any, in the vehicle.  The statements made by the appellants are vague and non-specific.  Admittedly, when a trouble arose with respect to the relay, the same was rectified immediately.  Therefore, the finding of the District Commission that the car had no manufacturing defect as alleged cannot be found fault with.

15.     The claim for exchange bonus has also been rightly rejected by the District Commission.   Since the appellants had sold off their old car on 07.08.2020 to one Smt.Soumya, W/o Dasan, they had no car of their own when they booked their vehicle on 20.08.2020.  For the above reason, they have no right to claim exchange bonus from the respondents.

In view of the above factual scenario and evidence, we do not find any grounds to admit this appeal or to grant the reliefs sought for herein.  This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

SL