CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

 Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                               Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.87/11

Wednesday the 20^th   day of June, 2012.

 

Petitioner                                              : Dr. Rajeswari K.S

                                                             Rajeevam House,

                                                             Aymanam PO,

                                                             Kottayam-686 015.

                                                             (Adv.Avaneesh v.N)

 

                                                          Vs.

Opposite parties                                   : Maruthi Suzhuki Ltd.

                                                             Rep.by Managing Director

                                                             Palam Gurgaon Road,

                                                             Gurgaon-122015.

                                                             (Adv.Zakhier Hussain)                                                           

                                                            2) Popular Vehicles &Service Ltd

                                                                Rep.by its Branch Manager,

                                                                Kottayam, S.H.Mount PO,

                                                                Kottayam.   

                                                                (Adv.K.Vinod)

 

 

 

            Case of the petitioner filed on 28/3/11 is as follows.

 

            Petitioner a doctor, decided to purchase a Maruthi Alto Car, manufactured by 1^st opposite party from its authorized dealer 2^nd opposite party. On 31/1/11 petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party for Maruthi Alto Car, 2011 model. At the time of booking of car 2^nd opposite party intimated the petitioner that she have to wait over one month for the delivery of the car.  On 25/2/11 2^nd opposite party intimated the petitioner that the vehicle is ready for delivery and further a corporate bonus of Rs.2000/- is granted to the petitioner by the company. Petitioner approached the RTO to register the vehicle. After registration petitioner understood that vehicle supplied by the 2^nd opposite party is a 2010 model vehicle instead of 2011 model. Further more 2^nd opposite party had not paid the offered corporate bonus of Rs.2000/-. Petitioner contacted the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party for change of model, in person and through e-mail. But attitude of opposite party in response to the demand of petitioner is a neglecting manner. According to the petitioner act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. So petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service. Petitioner claims Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

            1^st opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the 1^st opposite party, as per the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.Vs. Purusottam Lal & Another(Civil Appeal No.708/07 dtd 22/7/10), before entertaining a complaint petitioner must establish that there is some deficiency of service. Petitioner is not a consumer and 1^st opposite party is not a proper party to complaint. The transaction between 1^st and 2^nd opposite party is a principal to principal basis so, manufacturer is not liable for acts of distributors. According to 1^st opposite party they should have been vigilant for the products and its quality. According to 1^st opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they prayed for dismissal of petition with their costs.

            2^nd opposite party filed separate version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to 2^nd opposite party petitioner is only a benami with regard to the transaction between the petitioner and 2^nd opposite party.    Husband of the petitioner is necessary party to the proceedings. There is no deficiency of service on their part and the petitioner is not a consumer. 2^nd opposite party admitted purchase of Maruthi Alto K10 VXI car but petitioner never demanded for a 2011 model. Husband of the petitioner knowing the offer and the difference of purchase price of 2010 and 2011 model specifically instructed petitioner to deliver a 2010 model vehicle to petitioner.  According to petitioner while booking on January 2011 a customer will not get a 2011 model vehicle. According to 2^nd opposite party there is no deficiency of service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

 

i)                    Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by petitioner and 1^st opposite party. Ext.A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner.

            Crux of the case of the petitioner is that the act of opposite party in delivering 2010 model alto car for a booking made on 31/1/11 amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Admittedly the fact of booking of the car on 31/1/11 by remitting Rs.10,000/- and the delivery of the car on 25/2/11 is not disputed by both opposite parties. Petitioner produce copy of R.C book issued by registering authority to the petitioner the same is marked as Ext.A3. In Ext.A3 year of manufacture is shown as 2010. So admittedly petitioner got a 2010 model car for a booking done on the year 2011.   According to 1^st opposite party the relationship between the opposite party 1 and 2 is principal to principal and as per clause 5 of the dealership agreement. 1^st opposite party is not responsible for any act of omission, commission on the part of 2^nd opposite party. Further more as per decision rendered by the National Commission in V.K.Gupta & Sons Vs. Maruti Udyog & Others dtd 1/9/11 (RP 3677 of 2006) Hon’ble National Commission stated that the relationship between the Maruti and dealer is principal to principal. Further more in Civil Appeal No.708/07 dtd 22/7/10(Maruti Suzuki India Ltd Vs. Purusottam Lal and another Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that for getting any remedy against a party Fora must establish that there is some deficiency of service by the respondents. Here even though the petitioner alleged that there is some deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party petitioner have not adduced any evidence to prove deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party. Admittedly petitioner booked the car from 2^nd opposite party the dealer. Privity of contract is between the petitioner and 2^nd opposite party.

            “Deficiency” is defined in Consumer Protection Act Section 2 (g) as any fault, imperfection or short coming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by any law or under any contract, express or implied.

            Here admittedly act of 2^nd opposite party in not supplying a brand new 2011 model maruthi alto car for a booking done on 2011 January is an imperfection in the standard which is required to be maintained under a contract and amounts to deficiency in service.

            2^nd opposite party has a definite case that husband of the petitioner insisted for a 2010 model car because there is some offer and price value is less for a 2010 model car. But nothing is placed on record by 2^nd opposite party to prove the allegation that husband of the petitioner insisted for a 2010 model car. Further in Ext.A2 communication from 2^nd opposite party to the petitioner nothing is mentioned with regard to allegation of insistment made by the husband of petitioner. In Ext.A2 it is further stated that they allotted a vehicle from their existing stock since there was no specific demand. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove the case of offers to the 2010 model car. In our view no prudent man will book an old model car because a one year back model car in the hand of a newly purchased consumer is definitely a 2^nd hand vehicle rather market value of one year less model car is less than a new one. In our view act of 2^nd opposite party in supplying 2010 model vehicle for a booking conducted on 2011 is definitely an unfair trade practice. Petitioner has a definite case that opposite party has not given corporate bonus to the petitioner. The said fact is not denied by the opposite parties so we presume that no corporate bonus has given by the opposite party to the petitioner. 1^st opposite party has not filed any affidavit or adduced any evidence to prove their contention so in our view the allegation of petitioner against the 1^st opposite party is unchallanged. So point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed.

            In the result 2^nd opposite party is ordered to pay petitioner an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service committed by the 2^nd opposite party. Without saying supplying an old model car to a consumer who except a new model caused much hardship and mental pain. So 2^nd opposite party is ordered to pay petitioner an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, loss and sufferings. 2^nd opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- as cost of the litigation to the petitioner.

            Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order. If the order is not complied as directed petitioner is entitled for 9% interest for awarded amount from the date of order till realisation.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20^th day of June, 2012 .

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-                

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

                                   

Ext.A1-R.C.Book

Ext.A2-Copy of letter dtd 14/3/10

Ext.A3-series copy of e-mails

Nil

 

By Order,