SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant in brief is as follows:
On 14-01-2012 complainant booked a I10 sportz car at the inducement of the opposite party that they will deliver him a car manufactured in the end of the year 2011, that is having a cash discount of Rs.25,000/- and it was told that they themselves register the car with Registering Authority in the name of complainant. Accordingly the car is delivered to him. But when the complainant received the Registration Certificate from the Registering Authority on 8-03-2012 he realised that the vehicle delivered to him was a make of February 2011. According to complainant the opposite party had deliberately delivered an old vehicle which was exposed to rain and sunlight for a year and by delivering the said neglected vehicle and by collecting the price of a brand new one model made unlawful gain and thereby caused monetary loss mental pain and sufferings to him. Due to the act of opposite party at least Rs.75,000/- is depreciated from the market value of the vehicle. Hence the complaint.
2. According to opposite party complainant approached opposite party’s show room on 14-01-2012 for purchasing a vehicle. Since it was starting of the year, opposite party had attractive offers available to the vehicles manufactured in the previous year. Complainant opted to purchase the car of previous year’s make to avail the discount offer. The opposite party has never made any commitment regarding the month of manufacture of the vehicle. The complainant preferred a red colour I10 sportz car. The opposite party had a red colour I10 sportz car displayed in the show room, shown that to the complainant and a after through inspection and checking he demanded the same. A total discount of Rs.33,196/- was given to the complainant. The vehicle delivered to the complainant had never exposed to rain and sunlight since it was the vehicle which is kept in the show room of the opposite party for display. Pre-Delivery inspection was also conducted before delivery and the vehicle is delivered in extremely good condition. The complainant had never raised any defects regarding the vehicle at any point of time. Complainant brought the vehicle for fist service on 21-03-2012 and he had no complaint regarding the vehicle at that time also. The true fact is that on 26-01-2012 complainant approached the opposite party and wanted to give him the vehicle manufactured in the year 2012 in place of the vehicle manufactured in the year 2011 so that only he could get good re-sale value. The opposite party expressed their helplessness since the vehicle was already registered in the name of the complainant and also the offer availed was provided to him. That was not available to a car manufactured in the year 2012. Complainant felt angry and returned threatening that he would teach a lesson to opposite party. Thereafter complainant sent lawyer notice and subsequently this complaint is filed.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 to A6 marked on his side. He faced cross-examination by the learned counsel for the opposite party. On the side of opposite party Sri.Abdul Samad ,the Finance and Administrative Manager of opposite party filed affidavit as DW1 and Exts B1 to B7 marked on the side of opposite party. Both sides heard and documents perused.
4. The definite case of the complainant is that opposite party made him believe that they will deliver him a car manufactured in the end of the year 2011 with discounts, but they delivered him a car manufactured in the month February 2011. This is caused him loss and mental agony.
5. As against this case, the contention of opposite party is that they never offered him a car that is manufactured in the end of the year 2011. Complainant expressed his willingness to purchase the car with offers available with it and he taken delivery after satisfying with it’s performance and at no occasion he made any complaint regarding the performance of the car.
6. Though complainant had subsequently came with another contention regarding the illegal collection of handling charges and logistic charges etc, such a plea is not find a place either in his complaint or in his proof affidavit.
7. The opposite party categorically denied the averment of the complainant that they offered a vehicle manufactured in the ending months of 2011. The complainant did not produce any document to prove that the opposite party offered him on I10 sportz car made in the later months of 2011. In the absence of such evidence we are unable to accept the case of the complainant. Had the complainant got a case that opposite party collected handling charges and logistic charges, then he can resort the remedy by filing another complaint. The Forum is unable to give any relief which has not been asked. In this regard we accept the argument advanced by Adv. Shahzad, learned counsel for opposite party relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Dr.K.Kumar Advisor (Engineering) Maruti Udyog Ltd V Dr.AS.Narayana Rao & Anr reported in 2009 (4) CPR 257 (NC),
The complaint therefore fails and hence it is dismissed with no order as to costs.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
A1.14-03-2012 copy of lawyer notice.
A2. Postal acknowledgement card.
A3.14-01-2012 Photocopy of Receipt issued by OP to complainant for an amount of
Rs.5,000/-
A4.21-01-2013 Photocopy of Receipt issued by OP to complainant for an amount of
Rs.5,00,354/-.
A5.14-01-2012 copy of Proforma Invoice.
A6. Photocopy of RC KL 14-L 2870.
B1. Settlement sheet of Anantharama.P.
B2.3-2-12 Cash requisition/voucher.
B3.3-2-12 Cash requisition/voucher
B4. Satisfaction certificate issued by complainant
B5. Repair Order
B6 Mathrubhumi daily 16-01-2013.
B7.Tax invoice.
PW1. Anantharama.P.
DW1.Abdusamed
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
