Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/167/2014

M. SARAVANAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

VISHAKKA MOTORS,SALES SECTION - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

12 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                        PRESIDENT

                  THIRU.S. KARUPPIAH,                                                       JUDICIAL MEMBER

                  R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                    MEMBER

                                                                                                                 

F.A.No.167/2014

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.05/2013, dated 20.02.2014 on the file of the District Commission, Thiruvallur.   

 

 TUESDAY, THE 12^th DAY OF APRIL 2022.

 

M.  Saravanan,

S/o. Munivel,

No.1/81, Perumal Kovil Street,

Kerumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 122.                                                      Appellant/Complainant

                                     

                 Vs

 

1.    Vishaka Motors Sales Division,

       No.397, Trunk Road, 

       Gumananchavadi, Poonamallee,

       Chennai – 600 056.

 

2.    Vishaka Motors Service Division,

       No.397, Trunk Road, 

       Gumananchavadi, Poonamallee,

       Chennai – 600 056.

 

3.    Bajaj Auto Limited.,

       Mumbai – Pune Road,

       Akrudi,   Pune – 411 035.                                       Respondents/Opposite Parties 

   

For the Appellant/Complainant             :   Appellant appeared party in-person     

 

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3/     :   M/s. K.J.S.  Premkumar, Advocate.  

          Opposite parties 1 to 3:                           

 

          This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 29.03.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

 THIRU. S. KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.    

 

1.       This appeal has been filed under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/complainant whose complaint was dismissed by the District Consumer Commission on 22.02.2014.    

2.       For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they ranked in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvallur.  (In short “District Commission”).              

3     The facts before the District Commission are as follows; -   The complainant having been allured by the advertisement made by the opposite parties 1 & 2, intended to purchase a Bajaj two wheeler (motorcycle) and approached the opposite parties’ show-room on 29.12.2011.   In the quotation, it has been stated that an advance amount of Rs.11,351/- has to be paid and further an EMI of Rs.1957/- has to be paid for 24 months.  Immediately, the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.200/- and remaining amount of Rs.11,151/- paid on 06.01.2012 and the vehicle was delivered to him. Subsequently, registration was done and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2000/- for registration and he further paid Rs.1070/-.  Instead of receiving EMI of Rs.1957/- the opposite parties are collecting Rs.1966/-. The complainant regularly serviced the two wheeler but since the inner parts are very inferior quality, they caused repairs and thereby the complainant faced mental agony and hardship.  Finally, on 15.11.2012, the complainant gave a vehicle for service for which the 1^st opposite party demanded Rs.10,000/- for repair charges.  The vehicle was purchased just before 8 months and as it was in poor quality,  complaining the facts the complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties for which there is no reply and hence the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to return the payment of Rs.33,545/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.2000/-.          

4.       Resisting the complaint, the opposite parties filed a joint written contending inter alia that the complaint was filed nearly one year after the date of purchase. The vehicle was all along used by the complainant without any repairs. As per service records, for the periodical free service the nominal charges were received and only minor complaints were attended.  This vehicle was run more than 12,000 kilometres during the short period.  On 17.11.2011, the complainants produced the vehicle as if it was met with an accident. Only for the purpose,  charges demanded and dissatisfied with the demand, the complainant filed this vexatious complaint and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

5.           The District Commission, after receiving the proof affidavits and documents Exhibits A1 to A10 on the side of the complainant, and the opposite parties’ written version and the documents Exhibits B1 to B9 after pursuing the same, found that there is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint.  Dissatisfied with that order, the complainant has preferred this appeal stating that the District Commission failed to note that instead of receiving Rs.1957/- the opposite parties collected Rs.1966/- and the District Commission failed to note that even during the warranty period the opposite parties changed/replaced the spare-parts which are inferior quality and hence it caused great mental agony and hardship to the complainant which was not taken into consideration by the District Commission. The same facts were submitted by the complainant in person before this Commission. On the other hand, the opposite parties’ counsel submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their side and the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint and therefore prayed that the appeal is to be dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission.

6.      The points for consideration are

         (1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the respondents/

                opposite parties?          

         (2)   Whether the District Commission’s order is legally sustainable?

7.     Point Nos. 1 & 2:- It is the admitted fact that the opposite parties made an advertisement in the newspaper, “Dina Malar” on 28.12.2011 which has been marked as Ex A9. The quotation, dated 29.12.2011 issued by the opposite party is marked as Ex A3 in which it has been stated that the monthly EMI is Rs.1957/-.  But, in the sale quotation, in the bottom lines, under the caption of General terms of sale”, in the 2^nd terms, it has been mentioned that “the price is subject to change without prior notice and will be charged as applicable.  Similarly, in Ex A1 advertisement it has been mentioned that the above offer is only for three days.  So, from Exhibits A1 to A3, it can be easily understood that the price mentioned in those documents are subject to change and the complainant cannot raise any objection with regard to the change in the price or change in the instalments.  Moreover, the instalments were paid only to the Family Credit Corporation Limited, as evidenced from Ex A7. That Finance Company received the monthly EMI at the rate of Rs.1966/-.  So, if as alleged by the complainant any increase over the accepted monthly instalment received by the finance company he has to implead the finance company as a party to the proceedings.  As the finance company was not a party to the proceedings, for the enhanced receipt of EMI, the opposite parties are not liable.  This Commission finds that the complainant cannot claim any relief against the opposite parties.

8.      It is further alleged by the complainant that the vehicle was inferior in nature and the spare-parts are defective in nature and that each periodical service repairs it caused mental agony to him. On the other hand, the job cards produced by both the parties would reveal that the vehicle did not suffer any major repairs and on the other hand it was serviced for simple wear and tear and in the job cards, there is no mention of any parts which are inferior in quality and the complainant also did not mention specifically which part of the motorcycle was inferior in quality. This Commission cannot find fault with the quality of the vehicle.  Moreover, the vehicle was continuously used for almost 12,000 Kilometres without any break within a period of 9 months.  Almost, an average of 1000 kilometres was run in a single month which shows the vehicle is in a good condition. Considering all the above aspects, as well as there is no expert evidence or there is no any mechanic report, this Commission is unable to subscribe the allegation of the complainant that he was provided with inferior quality of vehicle. In the mean while, we find that there is no substance and truth in the case of the complainant and this Commission also finds that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission. The points are answered accordingly.  

9.      In the result,

         1)   the appeal is dismissed without costs.

         2) the order of the District Commission, Thiruvallur made in C.C.No.05/2013, dated 20.02.2014 is confirmed.   

                             

   

 

 R. VENKATESAPERUMA,          S. KARUPPAIAH,                             R. SUBBIAH,

        MEMBER                           JUDICIAL MEMBER.                          PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March 2022