Date of Filing 31.08.2023

                                                                                                            Date of Disposal: 12.01.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                         …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                                ……MEMBER-I

               THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, ICWA(Inter), BL.,                                                              ….MEMBER-II

CC.No.95/2023

THIS FRIDAY, THE 12^th DAY OF JANUARY 2024

Mr.K.Karthick,

S/o.Kathiravan,

No.111, Malligai Apartments,

Silver Street, Butt Road,

St.Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016.                                                   ......Complainant.

                                                                                //Vs//

1.The Proprietor,

   M/s.Arasu Motors,

   No.20, Ekkambaram Nayangar Complex,

   Arcot Road, Porur, Chennai 116.

2.The Manager,

    TVS Motor Company,

    Post Box No.4, Harita,

    Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

    Tamil Nadu 635 109.                                                                     …..Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                         : Mr.T.Vijayan, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                : M/s.R.N.Kasi Vishwanathan, Advocate.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party               : Exparte.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 02.01.2024 in the presence of Mr.T.Vijayan,  counsel for the complainant and M/s.R.N.Kasi Vishwanathan, counsel for the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party was set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.MURUGAN, MEMBER-II

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in selling the vehicle along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the vehicle or to refund of Rs.1,22,380/- being the cost of the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant with cost of complaint.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. The complainant has stated that he purchased a two wheeler in his wife name, namely Mrs.Kala Priyadharsini from the opposite party model TVS NTORQ 125 (RACE) XP manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party on 04.05.2023 for a price of 1,22,380/- and the payment was made through debit card of ICICI Bank.  It is alleged by the complainant that the 1^st opposite party had issued a bill to the value of Rs.1,01,770/- only and  on questioning about this, the 1^st opposite party raised a fake bill for the total amount.  The complainant states that the 1^st opposite party had delivered the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 22 DZ 0103 on 07.05.2023 evening around 6.30pm. To the shock of the complainant, the vehicle had lot of scratches all over the body and hee informed the showroom for which the show room Manager asked the complainant to bring the vehicle to the showroom on 08.05.2023, the very next day.  The complainant has given the vehicle on 08.05.2023 but on 13.05.2023 the vehicle gave problem on right side fork assembly and the kicker was not working for which the show room service engineers have made service on the vehicle and returned stating everything has been rectified and replaced.  After this service, the vehicle had the same problem and to the visit of the complainant on 17.05.2023 to 22.05.2023 and 25.05.2023 no action was taken by the show room engineers to set right the problem of the vehicle. Frustrated on the happenings, the complainant demanded to show the replaced spare parts for which the 1^st opposite party refused to show.  No bills were produced for the changed spares and after repeated enquiry the 1^st opposite party had informed that spares changed from the test drive vehicle and this made the complainant to feel cheated.  Since the 1^st opposite party indulges in such practice, the complainant also made a police complaint with T-15, SRMC Police Station and CSR issued on 01.06.2023.  Further the complainant has approached the manufacturer through customer care on 26.05.2023 prior to police complaint made, nothing particular happened in the service of the vehicle and he was humiliated at the hands of the 1^st opposite party’s staff and the complainant felt that the unfair trade practice by the 1^st opposite party and the complainant faced hardship and suffered immense mental stress at the place of 1^st opposite party.  Therefore the complainant had issued a legal notice dated 14.06.2023 whereby asking the opposite party to take back the vehicle and replace with the new vehicle but 1^st opposite party has not replied to the notice.  In the meanwhile, since the vehicle has covered the distance of first 1000 kms, the complainant has sought for first free service in July 2023 but the 1^st opposite party had refused to do so saying that since the issue is legally fought against them.  The intervention of police department has also yielded no result as per complainant.  The very intention of the 1^st opposite party is unjust practices, causing harassment and agonies towards complainant, it is alleged by the complainant.  Therefore to compensate such happenings by 1^st opposite party, the complainant has sought for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and to replace the vehicle or to refund the cost of Rs.1,22,380/- paid towards the vehicle cost.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 1^st opposite party:-

3. On the other hand, the 1^st opposite party in their version has stated that they are well established dealers and authorized main dealer of TVS Motor Company established in the year 2017 and a top player in the category of motorcycle dealer.  They state that the complainant has booked a two wheeler bearing model TVS NTORQ 125 (RACE) XP after much enquiry of all models and purchased the particular model vehicle in his wife name i.e. Mrs.Kala Priyadarshini by paying Rs.1,22,380/- through debit card after getting details on the road price of the vehicle, Registration expenses with RTO, Insurance and accessories and fittings etc.  He took delivery of the vehicle on 07.05.2023 upon mere satisfaction of product.  After several days of delivery the complainant has raised dispute regarding scratch on the vehicle.  It is stated by the 1^st opposite party that all the vehicles are subject to PDI (Pre Delivery Inspection) and deny that the vehicle does delivered with scratches.  The complainant has not raised this issue while taking delivering of the vehicle but later on with mala fide intention to get refund he made such complaint.  The photograph as submitted by the complainant does not specify the date of occurrence and the whole intention of the complainant was to create issues about them among public and with police department.  It is stated by the 1^st opposite party that they have provided all details on the price of the vehicle in ex-showroom invoice, Road Tax challan, Insurance policy and mandatory and optional accessories and the complainant has satisfied with all the documents.  It is clearly mentioned the price of ex showroom and on road price of the vehicle which include registration, insurance etc. The 1^st opposite party has stoutly denied all the charges of unfair trade practice and service deficiency.  The 1^st opposite party has submitted that they should have raised complaint against the complainant for creating such a scene and loss of customers in their show room which made a loss 20+vehicle booking on 02.07.2023 but kept cool as it involves business.  The complainant has uttered words beyond meaning and his intention was to harass the 1^st opposite party and their staff and to grab money from 1^st opposite party with bad intention. It is stated by the 1^st opposite party that due service was done on the vehicle and they replaced the new spare parts under goodwill warranty. It is submitted that the vehicle was inspected, rechecked with the parts of vehicle and the complainant has took it for test drive and after his satisfaction only the vehicle was given delivery.  Therefore the in action and denial of service and non responsiveness of police complaint does not hold good in this case.  The 1^st opposite party has in fact submits that the complainant has harassed the staff and gave mental agony to them at every occasion. The 1^st opposite party has stated that whenever the complainant raised an issue regarding vehicle, the 1^st opposite party did its service to the full by inspecting the same and allowed the complainant to take test drive once it is serviced.  But the complainant who acted maliciously leave the show room with satisfaction and come up with some other issue next day.  This clearly shows the attitude of the complainant with an aim to get refund of the vehicle by posing false issues.  The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant is not only completely devoid of merit but amounts to blatant and flagrant abuse of the procedure and ex-facie false, erroneous and built on self-serving assumptions and interpretations. The complainant is grossly failed to show any deficiency or lack of service on the part of answering opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A9 were submitted. On the side of 1^st opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were submitted. Though notice was served to the 2^nd opposite party they did not appear before this commission to file any written version and hence he was called absent and set exparte on 06.11.2023 for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per statute.

Points for consideration:-

1)    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which has been successfully proved by the complainant?

2)    If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1 & 2:-

5. Version of both sides read and examined.  The fact of the case is that complainant has raised service deficiency on the 1^st opposite party and seek orders for replacement of new vehicle or refund of Rs.1,22,380/- to him with award of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss and damages caused to him with order cost.

6. The vehicle said to be purchased in the name of Mrs. Kala Priyadhasini but the complaint has been made by her husband in this case.  The buyer who made the vehicle purchase is the beneficiary and she has not preferred any complaint against the 1^st opposite party or so.  Though the service of the vehicle done at the instance and to the satisfaction of the complainant as per 1^st opposite party, the owner has not either vouched or authorized her husband to file any complaint against the seller i.e. 1^st opposite party. This clearly indicates the whole intention of the complainant on the issue of vehicle service and its aftermath action against the opposite parties without the consent of the buyer. In this case the legal owner of the vehicle has not authorized the complainant.  Therefore it is crystal clear that the complaint against opposite parties does not hold good and liable to be dismissed. In short, the complaint is dismissed on the merits that beneficiary does not involve in this case and failed to prove against the opposite parties. Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the Member-II to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 12^th day of January 2024.

         -Sd-                                                   -Sd-                                                          -Sd-                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER-I                                              PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party-

        -Sd-                                                 -Sd-                                                          -Sd-                                                                                                       

MEMBER-II                                      MEMBER-I                                             PRESIDENT