BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION.
KAMRUP
C.C.No. 71/2016
Present: Shri A.F.A.Bora, M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S(Rtd.) -President
Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
Shri Tutumoni Deva Goswami, B.A.L.L.B.- Member
Sri Mridul Dutta -Complainant
S/O Dharmeswar Dutta
R/O -H.No.100, Srimantapur,
JEC Road Garmur
District: Jorhat, Assam
Pin- 785001
-vs-
TI Automotives Pvt.Ltd. -Opp. party
VIP Road , Near Six Mile, -
Guwahati-781022
Appearance:
For the complainant Smti Daizima Parbin advocate .
For the Opp. parties Sri A.Sandilya advocate .
Date of filing written argument
by both the parties :- 10.1.19 and 14.8.19
Date of oral argument:- 24.9.22
Date of judgment: - 17.6.2022
JUDGMENT
- This is a complaint filed by Sri Mridul Dutta, against TI Automotives Pvt.Ltd. The complaint petition was admitted and notice was served upon the opp.party .Opp party contested the case and both the parties have filed their written argument . On 14.3.2022 this commission passed an order with regard to petition No. 323/22 which was filed by the complainant , praying for acceptance of the written argument filed on 10.1.2019 . Accordingly , oral argument on behalf of the opp.party was heard on 29.4.2022 and today is fixed for delivery of judgment.
- The brief fact of the complaint is that complainant on 01.08.2014 have purchased a four wheeler vehicle , “Duster Diesel RXL Adventure Edition, Model- THPRXL, Colour-Amazon Green, Chassis No. MEEHR436E6035425, Engine No. D045030 from the respondent . The complainant have purchased the vehicle in question fixing the total price of Rs.12,33,200/- and accordingly he received a cash memo. The process of purchase was started between the complainant and the respondent on dtd. 23.7.2014 at 3.51p.m. through e.mail. The respondent sent an e.mail to the complainant stating all the description and facilities and dimension of adventure (Duster Diesel RXL Adventure Edition) .
- The complainant states in his petition that after highly satisfied with the e.mail dtd. 23.7.2014, he decided to purchase the said vehicle in question and due to financial crisis he decided to take a loan from SBI , Tezpur main branch. The complainant on 21.7.2014 deposited Rs.45,000/- as an advance amount to the respondent and asked for a test drive. But the respondent later on confirmed in negative about the test drive for 110PS Renault Duster Diesel Adventure Edition. The complainant on 22.7.2014 called the respondent to sent technical details of 110PS Renault Duster Diesel Adventure Edition. The respondent on 23.7.2014 sent in details, the specification of the vehicle in question. The delivery of the said vehicle was done on 2.8.2014. After handing over the possession of the vehicle in question to the complainant , he found the following mismatch.
- Rear Air Conditioning (HUAC) vent missing for rear seat passengers.
- Driver seat height and co-driver seat height adjustment is not available.
- CD player validity not available in the cansole,
- That rimmed wheel provided for the spare tyre (stepnie) whereas all four wheels are smoked alloy sheels. Hazard prone and mismatch in balance due to the difference in weigh causing significant imbalance of momentum when the vehicle is on speed. The strength and durability of alloy rimmed is also much better than steel rimmed wheel.
- The complainant alleged that after much discussion and arguments with the respondents with the acknowledgment of above mentioned missing specification and facility as committed on 23.7.2014 through e.mail and request them to take those shortcoming as soon as possible. On 4.8.2014 the complainant through e.mail informed Mr.Vivek Kumar of Renault by lodging a complain , but he did not tried anything . On 6.8.2014 , T.I. Automotive acknowledged these issues and accept that specification were incorrectly mentioned in e.mail and they also refused to do anything on these mismatch.
- The complainant states that after several reminders the respondent did not give any response to the complainant and also have not replaced the vehicle or have not repaired and exchanged the parts that were mismatched as mentioned above. The complainant has suffered loss and damages which the complainant assesses such loss at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only, along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for physical and mental agony and cost of the proceeding.
The opp.party contested the proceeding by filing written statement which indicating the following ,
- That the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form nor in any other form . That the party raising the dispute by the complainant has no locus to raise the dispute as his rights have already been crystallized . That there is no deficiency of service and the present complaint is devoid of merit . Hence, is liable to be dismissed at the outset.
- The opp.party states that the complainant purchased a four wheeler vehicle “Duster Diesel RXL Adventure Edition, from them . At the time of the delivery of the vehicle to the complainant all this specifications were well informed and also described in the sale certificate and sale invoice and the complainant took delivery of the said vehicle even the specification that were not available , but inadvertently shown as available in the e.mail dtd. 23.7.2014 was explained to the complainant and the complainant still agreeing to buy the said vehicle and the same was recorded in the invoice and counter signed by the complainant . Therefore , the complaint of the complainant is not factually correct and legally tenable and as such there is no deficiency in service.
- The opp.party also states that the complainant requested for the online broacher of the “Duster Diesel RXL Adventure Edition. However the sales consultant who was newly appointed inadvertently downloaded a brochure of the Duster Diesel RXL Adventure Edition from the website which is not approved by Renault instead of downloading from the official website of the company and the same was forwarded to the complainant . The said brochure was not updated with the latest features of the adventure edition and some of the features mentioned in the said brochures are not part of the adventure edition.
- The opp.party states in their written statement that they informed the complainant and the complainant had taken test rides in order to take a decision. The complainant was informed beforehand that the features in question are not present in the vehicle he opted for. At the time of the delivery it had been specifically clarified to the complainant that those features are not part of the adventure edition. The complainant being fully satisfied with the vehicle with the present features instead of backing off decided to purchase the same.
- The op.party states in their written statement that the following specification which were not part of the adventure edition were noted down in the body of the invoice dtd. 1.8.2014 :
- Driver seat height adjust-not available
- C.D player not available
- 5th wheel (spare) alloy. These are not available in RXL 110 Adv.
- Rear al vent not available
- Leather wrapped steering wheel not available
- The op.party states that they were shocked to receive an e.mail on 4.8.14 alleging that few of the features were not present in the vehicle. The e.mail of the complainant has been replied on 6.8.2014. The vehicle was purchased in the year 2014 and his e.mail dtd. 4.8.2014 has also been addressed to him on 6.8.2014 by the respondents, still after 2 years on 27.7.2016 the complainant approached this Forum with some vague and baseless allegations against the respondents which demonstrates the malafide intention of the complainant and that he has not approached this Forum with clean hands and the present petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.
- After going through the pleadings of both the parties the following issues are to be decided “
- Whether the opp.party committed any mistake by delivering a vehicle not chosen by the complainant (technical mismatch) thereby, they are liable for deficiency in service ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation from the opp.party for deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party ?
- Whether there is delay of more than 2 years in filing the complaint ?
We have perused the evidence along with the following exhibited documents of the parties .
- Ext. 1 certificate of registration
- Ext. 2 cash memo dtd. 1.8.2014
- Ext. 3 print copy of e.mail dtd. 23.8.2014
- Customer copy of S.B.I.General
- Ext.5 print copy of e.mail
- Ext.6 print copy of e.mail.
- Ext.1(A) and extract of proceedings of meeting of the Board of Directors of T.I. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
- We have duly considered the cross examination portion of the evidence of Sri Mridul Dutta (C.W.1) and for proper understanding of the fact the evidence part as admitted are placed on record for further discussion which are quoted here-in-below -
- “ I filed my evidence on affidavit . I signed the affidavit in this court . The concerned purchased is second purchase of 4 wheeler vehicle in my life.
(II) “In 2014 I decided to purchase a new vehicle . In 2014 I considered Nissan Terrano, Renault Duster. I visited the showroom of the op.party situated at Six Mile, Guwahati.”
(III) “I do not remember today the exact name of marketing officer, whom I met , but his title is Singha. I asked him about the specification of the said car . I paid advance money to the opp.party for purchasing Duster Car on 21.7.2014 amounting Rs. 45,000/- .Ext . 2 is the sale invoice . The invoice date is 1.8.2014. In the invoice there is a note that I received the said vehicle in good condition to my /our satisfaction. I/ myself signed in the said invoice . “
(IV) “ At the time of delivery of the said vehicle there was no C.D.Player attached to it. “
(V) “ On 1.8.2014 the opp.party clearly explained to me in the Duster Diesel TSPRXL adventurer addition driver & co-driver seat height adjustment, CD charger, spare alloy wheels, rear ac vent, leather wrapped steering wheel are not available.”
(VI ) “I did test drive of normal Duster only. It is fact that before purchasing a car I would be satisfied about features, specifications and performance of it.”
- The above part of the evidence of C.W.1 itself is contradictory to his own complaint and have made it clear that before purchasing the vehicle the additional factor as alleged had already been explained to him by the opp.party and his officials.
- Now we have taken note of the evidence of OPW Sri Dhrubojyoti Sarma. O.P.W. Shri Dhrubojyoti Sarma stated in his evidence that their sales representatives inadvertently downloaded a broachour “Duster Diesel RXL Adventure Edition” from the website www.carwale.com , not approved by Renault instead of downloading from the official website of Renault India and forwarded the same to the complainant .
16) It is found in the cross examination of O.P.W. Dhrubojyoti Sarma which is as follows,
(I) “Our sales consultant Ranjit Singh gave a specification description to the complainant before sale of the vehicle from another web-site. He belongs to our company . I have not taken any disciplinary action against him for using another web-site . Before taking the vehicle , test driving was done by the complainant through Ranjit Singh. “
(II) “ The wrong done by any staff is said to be wrong done by the company itself.”
(III) “ Ext.6 is the letter of apology issued by me. I apologized the complainant because above said items are not available in the vehicle sold to him. “
(IV) “ Ranjit Singh did the test driving of top model of Duster , but we sold to complainant RXL ADVENTURE DUSTER. “
(V) “ We mean good condition, to mean the vehicle is in good condition externally and mechanically .”
(VI) “The vehicle was purchased on 1.8.14 and on 4.8.14 the complaint was lodged with us. He filed this case on 10.8.16.
17) It is established from the pleadings of both the parties that there is no dispute that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question with full satisfaction . It is stated by the complainant in his cross examination that on 1.8.2014 Mr.Dhrubojyoti Sarma of the opp.party clearly explained about the non-availability of the alleged mismatch features to the complainant . Therefore, we hold that opp.party explained the clear picture of the vehicle in question to the complainant which he purchased have rendered his services to the complainant to his best ability .
18) we hold an opinion that the complainant could have refused to take the delivery of the vehicle in question as the Invoice Exh.2 dtd. 1.8.2014 of the said vehicle clearly reveals about the non-availability of the alleged mismatch if he was so serious about such features .
19) It is found that the opp.party stated in his evidence that the complainant on 21.7.2014 visited the show room of the opp.party company and the complainant took test drive of the top model Renault Duster vehicle . The Renault Duster RXL Adventure Edition was in the show room on display and the complainant properly checked it to his satisfaction. It was informed to the complainant that all specification of the top model Renault Duster are however , not available in the Renault Duster RXL Adventure Edition. The complainant paid Rs.45,000/- advance to book to the said Renault Duster RXL Adventure Edition on 21.8.2014.The O.P.W. stated in his evidence that he has seen the said invoice dtd. 21.7.2014 annexed as Annexure 2 to the complaint petition.
20) It is found from the Ext.5 which is a mail dtd. 4.8.2014 addressed to the opp.party by the complainant alleging mismatch in features namely ,
Alloy wheels out of 5 alloy wheels, the 5th spare wheel is an OEM steel wheel
CD changer isnot available.
Rear AC blower/system is not available.
Driver and co-driver seat height adjustment system is not available.
It is found from Ext.6 which is a mail dtd. 6.8.2014 by the opp.party addressed to the complainant wherein it is mentioned that at the time of delivery, the opp.party had clarified on the body of the Invoice about the above mismatch .
21)Therefore , taking all the saidissues together, we sum up our discussion and hold a view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp. party in selling the vehicleto the complainant with proper invoice. The lodging of complaint after use of the vehicle for more than2 yearsis also a factor not favouring the complainantwho had failed to explain why he was waiting for such a long period to file a complaint against the opp.parties. Hence , all these issues are decided in negative and is in favour of the opp.parties .
22)Inresult , case is dismissed as it is without merit. Parties will bear their own cost.
Given under our hand and seal of the District Commission, Kamrup, this the 17th day of June /2022.
(Shri Tutumoni Deva Goswami) (Smti Archana Deka Lahkar) (Shri A.F.A.Bora)
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Shri A.F.A.Bora
President,
District Consumer Commission, Kamrup.
Typed by me
Smt Juna Borah
Stenographer, District Consumer Commission, Kamrup.
