Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant had booked a Maruthi Swift Dzire LDI BS Car on 19/10/2015 and paid an amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- towards the price of the vehicle on 29/10/2015 to 1^st opposite party.  It is contended that 1^st opposite party colluded with other opposite party 2 to 4 and sold a vehicle bearing Engine No. D1342566245 and Chasis No. MA3FJEBIS00714409CF manufactured in the month and year 03/2015 to the complainant on 03/11/2015.  At the time of delivery 1^st and 2^nd opposite party sought time to hand over the sales certificate of the said vehicle to the complainant stating that there is a delay in paper works.  On 07/11/2015 the Sales Certificate and Vehicle data Sheet were handed over to the complainant.  It is contended that up on receipt of the said Sales Certificate, the complainant understood the month and year of vehicle he purchased and alleged that the opposite parties colluded and deceit the complainant by fraud.  It is contended that the complainant booked for the purchase of a branded new car and the same is assured by the 1^st opposite party.  But the 1^st opposite party delivered a car which was manufactured eight months prior to the booking date.  The said vehicle is suffering a depreciation defect hence the opposite party is liable to deduct the sale price of the vehicle on the basis of the depreciation. Though the complainant demanded to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party to replace the vehicle with a new one they were reluctant to do it.  According to him the act of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of them and it caused mental agony, hardship and monitory loss to the complainant.  Though the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice on 13/11/2015 to opposite parties they failed to redress the grievances of the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of                 Rs. 77,783/- plus interest as the depreciation amount, compensation cost, etc, etc. 
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite party 1 to 4 for their appearance. All the opposite parties except 4^th opposite party appeared before the Forum and 1^st to 3^rd opposite party filed a joint version.  The 4^th opposite party was not appeared before the Forum, hence 4^th opposite party was declared exparte by this Forum.  The version of 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are as follows. These opposite parties admitted that they are authorized dealers of vehicle manufacture by the 4^th opposite party.  It is also admitted that the complainant had booked a Maruthi Swift Dzire LDI BS Car with the 1^st opposite party on 19/10/2015.  According to them the delivery of the vehicle manufactured in the month and year of 3/2015 to the complainant not amount to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  It is further contended that when a customer’s orders a vehicle it will be delivered immediately.  In this case the complainant approached the opposite parties and wanted an immediate delivery of the vehicle.  At that time Maruthi Swift Dzire LDI BS Car was in stock with opposite parties so that it was delivered to him.  According to this opposite parties the complainant failed to submit the signature proof at the time of delivery of the vehicle that is why the opposite party could not deliver the sale certificate at the time of delivery.  The complainant has taken the new car on 03/11/2015 after availing all offers including the exchange offer even without producing the signature proof.  According to this opposite parties the value of all 2015 model cars are same.  The Maruthi Company offers scheme for old model vehicle and the value does not change in accordance with the month of manufacturing.  According to the opposite parties they did not commit any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant and there is no monitory loss happened to the complainant for this purchase.  Therefore, the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the case with cost to them.        
4. This Forum peruse the complaint, version and records before us and framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. Regarding the relief and costs?

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined him as PW1.  Through the PW1, Ext. A1 to A9 were also marked.  Ext. A1 is the copy of Proforma Invoice dated: 19/10/2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  Ext. A2 is the Tax/Vehicle Invoice dated: 29/10/2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite party. Ext. A3 is the copy of Insurance taken by the customer. Ext. A4 is the payment of confirmation letter dated: 29/10/2015.  Ext. A5 is the copy of sale certificate dated: 03/11/2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite party. Ext. A6 is the copy of vehicle data sheet dated: 03/11/2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  Ext. A7 is the letter issued from the office of the 1^st opposite party.  Ext. A8 is the Temporary registration certificate of the vehicle.  Ext. A9 series are the copy of the lawyer’s notice dated: 13/11/2015 addressed to the opposite parties.  On the other side the Sales Manager of the 2^nd opposite party examined as DW1.  He filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination.  After the closure of evidence we heard both sides.
6.  Point No.1&2: In this case the pleading of the complainant is that on 19/10/2015 he purchased a Maruthi vehicle in the name and style of Maruthi Swift Dzire LDI BS Car on 20/10/2015 from 1^st opposite party.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- to the opposite party through Canara Bank by RTGS.  In order to prove this fact the complainant produced and marked Ext.A1 proforma invoice dated: 19/10/2015 as Ext. A1.  In that Ext.A1 to offers are mentioned one offer is a consumer offer for Rs.15,000/- and exchange offer for an amount of Rs. 15,000.  As per Ext. A1 the road price of the vehicle is Rs. 7,01,859/-.  Ext. A2 dated: 19/10/2015 shows that the vehicle is having a showroom price Rs. 6,28,666/- after deducting the offers and discounts.  Ext. A3 is a customer docket including extended warranty details.  Ext.A4 is a document to show the conformation of payment of the vehicle Ext. A4 shows that the transaction amount of the vehicle is Rs. 6,30,000/-.  Ext.A5 is a copy of Sales Certificate of the vehicle dated nil which shows that the month and year of manufacture of the vehicle is on March 2015.  Ext. A6 is the vehicle data sheet of the above said vehicle which was issued on 03/11/2015.  The said vehicle data sheet shows that the vehicle manufactured in the month of March 2015 as such all the details with regard to the vehicle can be seen in Ext.A6.  On the basis of this Ext.A6 it can be inferred that the complainant had got knowledge about the month and year of the manufacture of the vehicle on 03/11/2015.  When we refer all the prior document marked except A5 Sales Certificate we cannot see any mention with regard to the month and year of the manufacture of the vehicle.  In Ext. A5 there is no mention with regard to the date of issue of the said Sales Certificate.  Ext. A7 is a letter dated nil show the entrustment of Sales Certificate of the vehicle to the complainant.  In Ext. A7 the date of issuance of the certificate or who issued the certificate or to whom the said certificate is issued were not seen.  Ext.A8 is a copy of the temporary certificate of registration in favour of the complainant dated:03/11/2015.  It shows that the vehicle is temporary registered in favour of the complainant and also seen description of the vehicle except the date of month and year of manufacture.  Ext. A9 series is a legal notice issued to the opposite parties in this case.  When we evaluate the evidence adduced by PW1 it is come out in evidence to see that the complainant booked the above said vehicle and express his desire for a speedy delivery of the vehicle.  In-cross he answered “വാഹനം book ചെയ്തപ്പോൾ ഉടൻതന്നെ വാഹനം ആവശ്യമാണ് എന്ന് OP യെ അറിയിച്ചിരുന്നോ (A) അറിയിച്ചിരുന്നു”.  In another question he answered “വാഹനം book ചെയ്തതിനു ശേഷം  order നൽകി വാഹനം എത്തിക്കാൻ 3 മാസം എടുക്കും എന്ന് opposite party 1 to 3 പറയുന്നു  (A).  അറിയില്ല”. In another question in-cross he answered 1^st to 3^rd opposite party യുടെ True value shop ൽ വാഹനം നൽകാതെ പുറമെ വാഹനം നൽകി exchange  offer നിങ്ങൾ വാങ്ങിയിരുന്നു എന്ന് പറയുന്നു.  (A) ശരിയാണ്  (Q) ടി സമയം  exchange offer ന് ആവശ്യമുള്ള  signature proof കൊടുത്തിരുന്നുവോ  (A) ഇല്ല Exchange offer ന് ആവശ്യമുള്ള signature proof നൽകാത്തതിനാലാണ് ബാക്കി documents ൻറെ ഒപ്പം sale letter നൽകാതിരുന്നത് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു (A) ശരിയല്ല”.   On the basis of the above testimony of PW1 it can be inferred that the complainant he who demand a vehicle at the time of booking itself and also received an exchange offer of Rs.15,000/- even without selling his old vehicle in 1^st to 3^rd opposite party’s true value shop.  In order to substantiate the contention of PW1 he examined PW2 a Diploma Holder in Auto Mobile Engineering who is conducting a Maruthi Authorized Service Centre.  He answered in-cross examination of the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party as follows.  “ഒരു വാഹനത്തിൻറെ depreciation road ൽ ഇറങ്ങും മുൻപ് തന്നെ ആരംഭിക്കും . ഒരു വാഹനം ഒരു വ്യക്തിക്ക് കൈമാറും വരെ  depreciation തുടങ്ങുകയില്ല എന്ന്  OP കൾ പറയുന്നത് ശരിയല്ല. (Q &A).  Book ചെയ്ത് 6 മാസം കഴിഞ്ഞാണ് വാഹനം owner ക്ക് കിട്ടുന്നത് എങ്കിൽ അതിന്  depreciation  ഉണ്ടാകില്ല. (Q&A).  Stock  ചെയ്തിട്ടുള്ള വാഹനം ആണെങ്കിൽ dealer ഉടൻതന്നെ delivery നടത്തും Date of Manufacturing മുതലാണ് depreciation ആരംഭിക്കുന്നത് എന്നാണ് എൻറെ അറിവ് (Forum Q) witness adds normal ആയി നടക്കുന്ന രീതി വച്ചാണ്  Customer വാഹനം ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന  date മുതലാണ് depreciation ആരംഭിക്കുന്നത് എന്ന് എതിർകക്ഷികൾ പറയുന്നത് ശരിയല്ല”.  Anyway on the basis of the testimony of PW2 we can see that he has no definite idea with regard to the depreciation aspect.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by PW1 and opposite party we would have to examine whether the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by delivering the vehicle manufactured in the month of March 2015 to the complainant.  It is the case of the opposite party that there is no depreciation for a vehicle which is manufactured any of the months in an year. The strong contention of the opposite party is that on demand of the complainant the 1^st opposite party delivered the above said vehicle to the complainant though it is manufactured in the year and month of March 2015.  In order to substantiate the contention of 1^st to 3^rd opposite party as discussed earlier they examined the Sales Manager of 2^nd opposite party.  In proof affidavit of DW1 he who deposed more or less as per the tune of his version.  When DW1 was cross-examined he answered “version ൽ para 4 ൽ  page 1 ൽ പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നതിൽ വാഹനം 2014 model ആണെങ്കിൽ ടി delivery fraud ആണ് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നത് അംഗീകരിക്കുന്നു   Delivery date ൽ നിന്ന് 8 മാസം പഴക്കമുള്ള വാഹനം ആണ് പരാതിക്കാരന് കൊടുത്തത്. Year of manufacturing base ചെയ്തിട്ടാണ് വാഹനത്തിൻറെ sale price നിശ്ചയിക്കുന്നത് (Q) ഒരു വർഷം പഴക്കമുള്ള വാഹനത്തിൻറെ  depreciation കണക്കാക്കണമെങ്കിൽ 8 മാസം പഴക്കമുള്ള വാഹനത്തിൻറെ depreciation കണക്കാക്കാൻ . (A) ഇല്ല”.  On the basis of above testimony of DW1 it is pertinent to see that DW1 also has no idea with regard to the depreciation of this kind of vehicle  even though he is the Sales Manager of 2^nd opposite party.  On the other side we cannot see any kind of suggestive question with regard to the depreciation by the complainant to DW1.  However in the light of the available evidence before us either the complainant or 1^st to 3^rd opposite party adduced any substantial evidence to prove the amount of depreciation of the vehicle.  It is come out in evidence to see that 1^st to 3^rd opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant as per his demand for a speedy delivery of the said vehicle.  If so whether the complainant has got knowledge about the month and year of manufacture of the vehicle at the time of delivery of the vehicle.  When we refer the oral and evidence on documents in this case it is to see that the month and year of the manufacture of the vehicle is known to the complainant only through Ext. A6 dated:03/11/2015.  On the basis of the Ext.A2 to Ext. A4 we can see that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 29/10/2015.  There is no evidence to see that the opposite party informed the month and year of manufacture of the vehicle to the complainant at the time of delivery.  It is true that as discussed earlier the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant forthwith due to the sudden demand of delivery by the complainant.  However we can find that the non-intimation of month and year of manufacture at the time of the delivery of the vehicle to the complainant is a deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party.  The 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are liable to that extend to the complainant.  As discussed earlier the complainant has not adduced any cogent evidence to calculate the depreciation amount of the vehicle which would happen in every year.  Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we don’t think that the 4^th opposite party has committed any deficiency in service against the complainant as the manufacture of the vehicle. It is also found that 1^st to 2^nd opposite party are Branch Offices of 3^rd opposite party the dealer of 4^th opposite party.  Hence 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are severely and jointly liable to the complainant.  Considering the fact and circumstances of this case there is no need to allow any compensation in this case.  Therefore, Point No.1 &2 are found accordingly. 
7. In the result, we pass the following orders.

1. Opposite party 1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay a compensation of

      Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for non-intimation of

      manufacturing month and year of the vehicle to the complainant and

      a cost of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) to the

      complainant within one month of receipt of this order.  If the

      opposite party 1 to 3 failed to comply the order they are directed to

      pay an interest of 10% to the above said amount from the date of

      this complaint onwards. i.e.,18/02/2016.

2. No order for any further compensation.

                              Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of October, 2017.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                          (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Behanan Joseph

PW2  :  Rajesh P.R.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Copy of Proforma Invoice dated: 19/10/2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite

       party.

A2 : Tax/Vehicle Invoice dated: 29/10/2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

A3 : Copy of Insurance taken by the customer.

A4 : Payment confirmation letter dated: 29/10/2015.

A5 : Copy sale certificate dated: 03/11/2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

A6 : Copy of vehicle data sheet dated: 03/11/2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite

       party.

A7 : Letter issued from the office of the 1^st opposite party.

A8 : Temporary registration certificate of the vehicle.

A9 series :  copy of the lawyer’s notice dated: 13/11/2015 addressed to the opposite parties.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  : Justin Francis

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

                                                                                                      (By Order)

Copy to :- (1) Bahanan Joseph,

                     Charivukalayil House, Theodikal P.O,

                     Kottanadu, Kumplathanam,

                     Pathanamthitta Dist.

                (2) The Branch Manager,

       Popular Vehicle and Services Ltd.,

       Opposite to Indian Oil Pump,

       Mamukku, Pazhavangadi.P.O, Ranni.

3. The Branch Manager,

       Popular Vehicle and Service Ltd.,

       Near St. Thomas Orthodox Church,

       S.H. Mount P.O, Chavittuvari, Kottayam-6.

4. Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd,

      Corporate Office, Kuttukaran Centre,

                     Mamangalam, Cochin – 25.

5. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, Plot No. I,

            Phase IIIA, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon,

            Haryana – 122102.

6. The Stock File.