BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 17th day of March 2018
Filed on : 17-03-2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.114/2017
Between
Ajukumar T.K., S/o. Kumaran, : Complainant
Thoppikunnel house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court road,
Ooramana P.O., Kayanadu, Muvattupuzha)
Muvattupuzha-686 663.
And
M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & : Opposite party
Sons Pvt. Ltd., (By Adv. V. Krishna Menon & Surya J
National Highway, Menon & Menon Advocates, Kumaran
Kaloor P.O., Arcade, Power House road, (Market
Kochi-17. Road, North End, Kochi-682 018)
Rep. by its Managing Director.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1.Complainant’s case
- The complainant is an Autorickshaw driver who earns his livelihood by plying Autorickshaw. On 24-01-2017 the complainant paid Rs. 49,000/- towards booking advance of an Autorickshaw and the autorickshaw was delivered with him after receiving the total consideration of Rs. 2,19,000/-. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was reduced towards the discount given for Autorickshaw drivers. However, when the complainant examined the registration certificate, it was found that the authorickshaw delivered to him was the one manufactured in April 2016. The market value of the autorickshaw manufactured in 2016 was less than the market value of the autorickshaw manufactured in 2017. The complainant is entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss due to the change in the year of manufacturing found on the registration certificate.
- Notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party filed a version resisting the complaint contending inter-alia as follows:
4. The complainant had booked a Mahindra & Alia diesel Autorickshaw, after examining and being satisfied with the same. While booking the vehicle the complainant had been shown the vehicle which was readily available with the opposite party and informed him that the model readily available, was a model manufactured in April 2016 and if he wanted a vehicle of 2017 model he have to wait for 3months. The complainant agreed to purchase the April 2016 model vehicle on a cash discount of Rs. 10.000/-. The complainant had booked a 2016 April model and availed the discount of Rs. 10,000/-. He took the delivery of the vehicle on 09-02-2017. While taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainant had thoroughly examined the vehicle and all relevant papers and he was convinced that it was a vehicle manufactured in April 2016. The complainant had purchased the vehicle solely with the intention of resale and not for earning his livelihood. There was no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is without any bonafide and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Following issues were settled for consideration.
- Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
- Reliefs and costs.
6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of DW1 and Exbt. B1 on the side of the opposite party.
- Issue No. i. The dispute is with regard to the model of the vehicle supplied to the complainant . According to the complainant he wanted a booking for purchasing a 2017 model autorickshaw. The opposite party’s contention is that the complainant was given Rs. 10,000/- as discount while agree to purchase a 2016 April model Autorickshaw. According to the opposite party, the discount of Rs. 10,000/- given was not a special offer given to autorickshaw drivers, the complainant did not produce his driving license to show that he had purchased the vehicle for his own use. He also did not produce any documents to show that there was a usual discount of Rs. 10,000/- given to drivers. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that in Exbt. A4 insurance certificate issued by M/s. New India Assurance Company, the year of manufacture of vehicle registered in the name of the complainant was manufactured in April 2017. The insurance certificate was given to the vehicle which was not registered when insurance was issued. In Exbt. A4 the year of manufacture of vehicle is shown as 2017. The insurance coverage was a for a period commencing from 24-01-2017 to 23-01-2018. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant as per invoice number ILE17B000852 dated 20-01-2017. The registration of the vehicle was done on 25-01-2017. The insurance certificate taken on the previous day of the registration of the vehicle shows that the vehicle insured in the name of the complainant without the registration number was manufactured in the year 2017. Whereas, the registration certificate would going to show that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2016 April. There is no evidence with regard to the fact that the insurance was taken by the seller/opposite party. Therefore, the printing of the year 2017 with respect to the unregistered Autorickshaw as of then could not have been prepared at behest of the opposite party. The complainant having admitted that he availed discount of Rs. 10,000/- we find that the case advanced by the opposite party, that the discount given to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- was only due to the fact that vehicle was manufactured 10 months prior to the date of delivery of the vehicle. The complainant produced Exbt. A6 to show that the opposite party had given a quotation for taking the insurance at a cost of Rs. 7,928/- and the quotation was given on 07-01-2017. But as per Exbt. A4 the premium paid is only Rs. 6,000/-. The complainant did not make any challenge on the difference in value further it is to be noted that in Exbt. A6 the opposite party is not seen to have offered any discount of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant being a driver.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the National Commission in similar case had directed payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, since there was a misdiscription of manufacturing year of the vehicle in the registration certificate . In that case, the registration certificate showed the manufacture year of the car was 2004 and not 2005. That decision reported in Dada motors Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar (2012 (1) CPJ 516 National Commission will not fit in to the facts of the present case, as in that case there was no discount given to the complainant, as in the present case at hand. In the above circumstance, we find that the issue is against the complainant.
9. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17th day of March 2018.
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : True copy of Cash Receipt
dt. 24-01-2017
A2 : True copy of bill dt. 20-01-2017
A3 True copy of certificate of
registration
A4 : Copy of policy schedule cum
certificate of insurance
A5 : Copy of driving license
A6 : Copy of Quotation/Proforma
Invoice
Opposite party's exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : New Vehicle Hand Over form
Depositions
PW1 : Ajukumar
DW1 : Suresh
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
