Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

189/2014

K.B.Sama - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director,M/s.Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

V.Balaji

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  18.09.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  11.01.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 11^th DAY OF JANUARY 2017

 

C.C.NO.189/2014

 

 

K.B.Sarma,

No.132/62, Apparsamy Koil Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.The Managing Director, M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurugon Road, Gurugon – 122 015.   2.The Manager, M/s.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Regional Office (South-1)   180, Kodambakkam High Road,   Chennai – 600 034.   3.The Manager, M/s. Indus Motors Co.Private Ltd., No.203-206, Mount Poonamalle Road,   Chennai – 600 056.
	.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                   23.09.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/S.V.Balaji S.Umapathy,

                                                                 A.Sermairaj

 

Counsel for   opposite parties 1 to 3     : Ex - parte

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 is the manufacturer of the Maruti Swift D Zine VDI car. The 3^rd Opposite Party is the dealer of the Maruti Swift D Zine VDI car. The Complainant approached the 3^rd Opposite Party/dealer in the middle of January 2014 and paid token advance of Rs.5,000/- at the time of booking. While booking the car the 3^rd Opposite Party told the Complainant that he would give the car manufactured in the month of November/December 2013. The Complainant after getting bank loan paid the full value of the vehicle, including insurance road tax, registration charges etc. at Rs.7,52,456/- to the 3^rd Opposite Party. The car was delivered to him on 06.02.2014 and the RC book was given to him on 28.03.2014.  Only after receiving the RC book and going through the details, the Complainant was shocked to note that the car manufactured in the month of March 2013 was delivered to him. The Complainant was under the bonafide impression that the 3^rd Opposite Party delivered brand new vehicle which was manufactured recently. The Complainant made a strong protest to the 3^rd Opposite Party for delivering the old manufactured vehicle and requested him to replace with new manufactured vehicle. The 3^rd Opposite Party informed the Complainant that their representatives would meet him on 29^th March and their people will call him on 31.03.2014. However no one met the Complainant. The Complainant wrote a detailed letter dated 31.03.2014 to the Opposite Parties 1 & 3 that he was misguided and cheated by selling the old vehicle to him. The 1^st Opposite Party sent a letter on 05.04.2014 stating that the Sales Manager of the 3^rd Opposite Party will extend necessary Assistant. The 3^rd Opposite Party also apologize through his reply dated 09.04.2014. The Complainant sent a re-joinder on 28.04.2014 to the 3^rd Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party sent a reply on 17.05.2014 to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties suppressed about the month of and year of manufacture to the purchaser before sale of vehicle. This is nothing but an unfair trade practice and purely  Deficiency in Service on their part. Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint to replace with new vehicle and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

          2. Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate filed vakalat for the 3^rd Opposite Parties and for non filing of written version, the 3^rd Opposite Party was set ex – parte.   

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2  IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant did not enter into any contract of sale or hired any service for consideration with these Opposite Parties. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and hence the Complainant cannot maintain the Complaint against these Opposite Parties as a Consumer. These Opposite Parties are not liable for any act of omission or commission committed by the dealer in selling the vehicle. The 3^rd Opposite Party governed by the provisions of dealership agreement executed between them and is based on principal – principal as is evident from clause 5 of the agreement. Therefore, this Opposite Parties 1 & 2 is no way liable and hence prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

          4. Though the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Party filed written version as party in person and  they did not file their proof affidavit and hence for non filing of proof affidavit they were set ex-parte.           

          5. The Complainant had filed his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 was marked on the side of the Complainant  and he also filed written arguments.    

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1

          The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are the manufacturer of Maruti Swift D Zine VDI car and the 3^rd Opposite Party is their dealer. The Complainant booked a Maruti Swift D Zine VDI car on 29.01.2014 under Ex.A1 by paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards booking amount. At that time the 3^rd Opposite Party told the Complainant that the car manufactured in the month of November/December, 2013 would be delivered to him. Ex.A2 is the invoice issued by the 3^rd Opposite Party to the Complainant. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,52,456/- after getting bank loan towards full value of the vehicle, including Insurance, Road Tax Registration Charges and the 3^rd Opposite Party delivered the car under Ex.A3 delivered challan on 06.02.2014. The 3^rd Opposite Party informed the Complainant that Registration Certificate will be delivered next 45 days and accordingly Ex.A4 Registration Certificate was delivered to him on 28.03.2014.

          8. The Complainant was shocked to note that on going through the details in the Ex.A4 Registration Certificate with the car was manufactured in the month of March 2013.

          9. The Complainant contended that at the time of booking, the 3^rd Opposite Party informed him that the car manufactured during November/December 2014 would be delivered to him. After noticing that the above series defects the Complainant made on strong protest to the 3^rd Opposite Party by selling the old vehicle, instead of new vehicle and hence  he wrote a detailed letter Ex.A9 dated 28.04.2014 to the 3^rd Opposite Party. In the said letter the Complainant specifically averred that the tyre fitted in the vehicle manufactured during July/Auugust 2013 and the vehicle was manufactured during March 2013 and the battery fitted “Exide” instead of “Amaron” as mentioned in the owner’s manual and service booklet in the vehicle sold to the Complainant.

          10. The 3^rd Opposite Party replied for the Complainant’s Ex.A9 letter in Ex. A10 dated 16.05.2014 that “Even though it is not a fault from our end, we have discussed about the closure of the Complaint through a settlement of compensation (for customer satisfaction) which was refused by you.”   The 3^rd Opposite Party nowhere in his reply denied the specific allegation of the Complainant referred in Ex.A9. Further, the 3^rd Opposite Party remained ex – parte and no contra evidence to the evidence of the Complainant. The 3^rd Opposite Party in Ex.A1 admits for a settlement of compensation to the Complainant itself proves that the deficiency mentioned by the Complainant in Ex.A9 letter have been admitted by the 3^rd Opposite Party. Therefore, we hold that from the pleading and evidence of the Complainant and also from Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 the Complainant proved that the 3^rd Opposite Party sold the Maruti Swift D Zine VDI car vehicle manufactured in the month of March 2013  instead of the vehicle manufactured by November/December 2013 as assured by him at the time of booking the car under Ex.A1, leads to an irresistible conclusion that the 3^rd Opposite Party practiced  an unfair trade practice by selling the old manufactured vehicle to the Complainant.

          11. As far as the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are concerned, there is no evidence or documents filed on their behalf and they remained ex – parte after filing their written version. In their written version they pleaded that the 3^rd Opposite Party is governed by the dealership agreement executed between them and based on principal to principal as is evidenced from clause 5 of the said agreement. The said agreement was not placed before this Forum as a document to prove their contention that they entered agreement with the 3^rd Opposite Party. Therefore the contention pleaded in the Opposite Party principal to principal basis is not applies in this case.

12. However on behalf of the Maruti Susiki Company a letter from the 2^nd Opposite Party office sent to the Complainant is marked as Ex.A11 and in the said letter they requested the Complainant to accept the offer made by the dealer on 15^th May and treat the issue as closed. It means the Maruti Susiki Company also requested the Complainant to accept the settlement of compensation as offered by the 3^rd Opposite Party. Since to manufacturer themselves offered requesting the Complainant to accept the compensation offered by them, they admit that the deficiency committed by the 3^rd Opposite Party by the selling the old vehicle to the Complainant instead to deliver the new vehicle is nothing but an unfair trade practice. Therefore in view of such conclusion the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 is also liable for the deficiency committed by the 3^rd Opposite Party and therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have committed Deficiency in Service.

13. POINT NO:2

          The Complainant prayed for replacing of the vehicle. Admittedly the Complainant is in possession of the vehicle and he is also using the same from the date of purchase that the vehicle manufactured on November/December 2013. The 3^rd Opposite Party failed to deliver the vehicle manufactured  on March 2013. Though the vehicle sold to the Complainant manufactured in the earlier period and the same would be only a new vehicle and therefore the Complainant is not entitled for replacing of new vehicle as prayed by him.

          14. The 3^rd Opposite Party agreed to deliver the vehicle manufactured during March 2013. However the vehicle manufactured 8 months prior to the assured period only delivered to him. Therefore certainly the IDV value of the vehicle would have been diminished.  Because of this position the value is diminished and further as assured, the vehicle was not delivered to the Complainant and the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted.  The manufacturer also urged the Complainant to take compensation from the 3^rd Opposite Party. Therefore considering the circumstances of the case, heavy compensation has to be awarded for the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties.  However the Complainant prayed only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Therefore we are inclined to order  that the Opposite Party 1 to 3 joint  by or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade and mental agony to the Complainant besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation. In respect of the other relief the Complaint is dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for  an unfair trade practice and mental agony to the Complainant, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. In respect of other reliefs the Complaint is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11^th  day of January 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 29.01.2014                   Copy of Order Booking

 

Ex.A2 dated 29.01.2014                   Copy of Invoice

 

Ex.A3 dated 06.02.2014                   Copy of Delivery Challan

 

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Copy of Registration Certificate

 

Ex.A5 dated 31.03.2014                   Copy of Letter from Complainant to Opposite

                                                    Parties

 

Ex.A6 dated 05.04.2014                   Copy of Reply from 3^rd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A7 dated 09.04.2014                   Copy of Reply form 1^st Opposite Party

 

E.A8 dated 15.04.2014           Copy of Representation sent to Chairman of 3^rd

                                                    Opposite Party

 

Ex.A9 dated 28.04.2014                   Copy of Rejoinder from Complainant to 1^st

                                                    Opposite Party

 

Ex.A10 dated 16.05.2014                 Copy of reply from 1^st Opposite Party

 

Ex.A11 dated 17.05.2014                 Copy of Reply from 3^rd Opposite Party

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT