STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :

                                           At  HYDERABAD

              FA 310 of 2014

                                                   AGAINST

                 CC No. 142 of 2013, DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY

Between :

1. The General Manager,

Varun Motors Pvt. Ltd

M.D. G., 12-13, Sudershan Enclave,

Beside Heritage Fresh, Madinaguda,

Hyderabad – R.R. Dist. 500 090.

2. The General Manager,

Varun Motors Pvt. Ltd

1-10-177, Varun Towers,

Begumpet, Hyderabad – 16           ..        Appellants/opposite parties

And

1. Jawahar Dutt Sunduru, S/o S. Jayadutt,

R/o Q. No. 4064, ODF Estate, Type IV Quarters,

Yeddumailaram,

Medak Dist. – 502 205.  ..    1^st respondent/complainant

2. The Managing Director

Maruthi Suzuki India,

Plot No.1, Nelsonmandela road,

Vasant Punj, New Delhi – 110 001..  2^nd respondent/3^rd opposite party

(2^nd respondent is not necessary party)

Counsel for the Appellants                 :   M/s. Indus Law Firm

Counsel for the Respondents             :    M/s. P.Sreeram Reddy for R-1

Coram                :

                 Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla         …      President

                                           And

                          Sri Patil Vithal Rao              …      Member

                          Friday, the Sixth Day of April

                                  Two Thousand Eighteen

Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            ***

1)       This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite parties 1 and 2  praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 24.03.2014  made in CC  142 of 2013  on the file of the  DISTRICT FORUM, Ranga Reddy.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.

3).      The case of the complainants, in brief, is that  he approached the second opposite party on 12.01.2013 and paid Rs.2,000/- to purchase  New Maruthi Zen Car and the second opposite party delivered the Car Estilo VXI white colour, chassis No. 372456, Engine No. 4374760 through first opposite party no. 1 on 24.01.2013 at 7.30 pm vide C No. 14783 for Rs.4,40,000/- without furnishing the manufacturing details of the vehicle.  He received the original documents on 22.02.2013  by putting the dates on the said certificates as 25.01.2013 and he came to know that the opposite parties 1 and 2 sold the old car  which was manufactured in February, 2012, but, they did not give any reply. He got changed the RH Shock absorbs on 08.03.2013 at Sri Sai Services, authorized Maruthi Service Station. The opposite parties 1 and 2 with malafide intention cheated  him and delivered old car which shows the speedo meter reading as 300 kms and it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to deliver the brand New Maruthi Vehicle of Estilo VXI 2013 Model and take back the vehicle of Estilo VXI white colour from him and pay damages of Rs.3,00,000/- along with costs.

4).      The opposite parties opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting the delivery of the vehicle on 24.01.2013 by way of SBH loan approved letter dated 23.01.2013  for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and vide D.C.No. 14783 with temporary registration vide AP 09 VP TR 5149 and Sales certificate and the invoice were issued on 22.02.2013 due to delay of Bank’s approval, contending that the complainant was given Rs.17,000/- additional discount and Rs.27,000/- discount under the scheme. The speedo meter reading was 10 kms only. Shock absorbs was rectified at Sai Service on 08.03.2013.  The complainant is well aware of manufacturing year and date of the subject vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed  to dismiss the complaint.

5).      The third opposite party contended that there is no privity of contract with the complainant  and hence the question of delivering any new vehicle does not arise. There is no prayer against their company and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6).      During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the  complainant  filed  his  evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1  to A10. No documents were filed by the opposite parties.. Heard the counsel for the complainant. 

7)       The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2  to deliver a brand new Maruthi Vehicle of Estilo VXI 2013  Model to the complainant after taking back the vehicle  of Estilo VXI white colour Maruthi Car vide Chassis No. 372456, Engine No. 4374760 from the complainant along with costs of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days.   The complaint against the third opposite party was dismissed.

8)       Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties 1 and 2   preferred this appeal before this Commission.

9).      Heard the counsel for the appellants and he requested to treat the grounds of appeal as written arguments. No representation for R-1 since a long time though appeared through an advocate.  

10)     The points that arise for consideration are,

(i)       Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?

(ii)      To what relief ?

11).   Point No. 1 :

There is no dispute that the first respondent/complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the appellants/2^nd opposite party vide Ex.A1 delivery challan dated 24.01.2013 which does not disclose the manufacturing date of the vehicle. There is no dispute that the first respondent/complainant that he received the original certificate only on 22.02.2013 was supported by Ex.A2, on which, he put his signature on 22.02.2013. There is also no dispute that the subject vehicle was repaired at their service centre, Sri Sai Services on 08.03.2013.

12).    The Contention of the first respondent/complainant is that instead of booking new Model car, the appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 delivered Old car and hence they betrayed him.  On other hand, the appellants rebutting the same contended that the first respondent/complainant having knowledge  that it is the old vehicle and that is the reason why he accepted  discount of Rs.27,000/- and additional discount of Rs.17,000/- while delivery of the vehicle.

13).    The District Forum observed that the appellants did not inform the manufacturing date  at the time of delivery of the car and deceived the first respondent/complainant by selling old car.

14).    Perusal of Ex.A4, Journal voucher, dated 12.01.2013,  shows that an amount of Rs.2,030/- was received towards booking for A Star LXI/ESTILO LXI Black EXE-IL YAS). Ex. A5, Journal voucher, dated 22.01.2013 shows an amount of Rs.20,300/- was received  towards balance margin money for ZEN Estilo VXI White Vehicle (EXE – II YAS), Ex.A6, dated 22.01.2013  receipt for an amount of Rs.30,000/- was received towards balance Margin money for Zen EStilo VXI, White Vehicle (Exe –ILYAS).  Ex.A9 letter dated 04.04.2013 discloses that the first respondent/complainant expressed his grievance that the appellants have delivered one year old Model car which was extensively used. There is no rebuttal from the appellants contradicting the same except they have given the discount and the car was used  only for  10 kms.  The appellants argued that it is known to the first respondent/complainant that it is an  old Model  car and hence discount was given. Even if we consider that it is known to the first respondent/complainant that it is an  old Model Car, what is the necessity for booking 2012 Model in the year 2013. Is it necessary for booking old model car when they are abundantly readily available in the market? Further, nowhere, it is mentioned that the first respondent/complainant booked for 2012 Model Car in the year 2013. It is to be inferred that while delivering the old Model vehicle they have given discount instead of delivering new Model Car.  In fact, there is no evidence on record that the first respondent/complainant booked 2012 Model vehicle and therefore  it was delivered to him and hence it    amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Hence we do not find any irregularity in the impugned order.

15).              After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides,   this Commission is of the view that  there is no error or irregularity in the impugned order and that there are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.

16).    Point No. 2 :

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the  impugned order dated 24.03.2014  made in CC  142 of 2013   on the file of the  DISTRICT FORUM, Ranga Reddy. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                            PRESIDENT                     MEMBER                                                                           Dated : 06.04.2018.

JBNRN (P) & PVR (M)

​