BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 201/2013 Filed on 24.05.2013

ORDER DATED: 29.02.2016

Complainant:

Vinu Sasidharan, S/o Sasidharan, H. No. 8/399, Lovely Cottage, Market Road, Attingal P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 101.

                             (By Adv. Narayan. R)

Opposite parties:

1. Indus Motor Company (P) Ltd., Cordial Towers, Kesavadasapuram Main Road, Near St. Mary’s School, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram -4 represented by its Managing Director.

2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Head Office, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070 represented by its Managing Director. 

3. Vishnu. M.G, Sales Executive/Sr. Sales Officer, Indus Motor Company (P) Ltd., Cordial Towers, Kesavadasapuram Main Road, Near St. Mary’s School, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-4.

(By Adv. Deepesh A.S for OP 1 & 3)

This C.C having been heard on 27.11.2015, the Forum on 29.02.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR:  MEMBER

The complainant being attracted by the advertisements of the opposite parties 1 & 2 decided to buy a Maruti Ertiga car for his personal use in April 2013.  Accordingly on 09.04.2013, he booked a Maruti Ertiga ZDI diesel car, superior white in colour.  The complainant was informed by the opposite parties that cars are readily available and that there is no need to wait for a 2013 model.  The complainant insisted that he requires a 2013 model itself and voiced his concerns as to whether the model readily available were 2013 models.  The complainant was assured by the 3^rd opposite party that they were selling only 2013 model Ertiga cars.  Accordingly on the said day itself the complainant made a payment of Rs. 3,000/- and booked the car.  Subsequently the complainant began to take steps to get loan ready for buying the car.  By early May 2013 the loan process was ready and the complainant took delivery of the car in the evening of 07.05.2013.  Thus the complainant became the owner of the Maruti Ertiga ZDI car bearing chassis No. MA3FLEBIS00152601 *LC and engine No. D13A2018342.  The ex-showroom price of the car was Rs. 8,91,166/-.  Enroute to Attingal, while the complainant was driving the car, he found that the insides of the car were dusty and that the flooring of the car also bore marks of trampling.  On reaching Attingal, when the complainant opened the dashboard of the vehicle he was surprised to find a parking ticket dated 19.11.2012 issued by the 2^nd opposite party quoting the same chassis number of the car purchased by the complainant.  The complainant subsequently checked the document issued by the 1^st opposite party.  He was shocked to find that in Sale Certificate the year of manufacture is written as November 2012.  In the Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy also the year of manufacture is shown as 2012.  However in vehicle data sheet issued by the 1^st opposite party, the year of manufacture is shown as November 2013- a date which is yet to occur.  Immediately on 08.05.2013, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and voiced his concerns regarding the year of manufacture of the car.  The 3^rd opposite party told the complainant that the cars sold were 2013 models itself and he gave some vague, incomprehensible and ludicrous reasons for 2012 being mentioned as year of manufacture.  The complainant was not satisfied with the explanation and the 3^rd opposite party asked the complainant to come after two days and that all queries of the complainant will be answered by a senior sales manager.  Accordingly on 10.05.2013, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party gave scant regard to the concerns of the complainant and kept on repeating the vague and incomprehensible reasons.  But the opposite parties gave a certificate of sale in which the year of manufacture is written as 2013.  The opposite parties 1 and 3 now took a stand that since the vehicle has been sold, no further queries on this matter can be entertained other than regular service matters and abruptly ended the discussion on this issue.  So he approached this Forum claiming compensation for the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties.

Opposite parties 1 & 3 filed joint version contending as follows:  The above complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The Regional Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram is a necessary party as they are the authority for registering the vehicle.  It is true that the complainant had booked a Maruti Ertiga ZDI Diesel white colour car on 09.04.2013 with this opposite party.  The statement that this opposite party had told the complainant that the booked cars are readily available and that there is no need to wait for a 2013 model is not correct.  The Ertiga ZDI diesel car and that too white colour are having high demand in the car market and so there is no question of telling any customer that the said cars are readily available.  The further statement that the complainant insisted that he requires a 2013 model itself and voiced his concern as to whether the model is readily available were 2013 models and the complainant was assured by this opposite party that they are selling only 2013 model Ertiga cars and accordingly the complainant had booked Ertiga car are all false and hence denied.  The complainant had come to this opposite party and booked a new Maruti Ertiga car only.  The statement that while he was driving the car he could find that inside of the car were dusty and that the flooring of the car also bore marking of tampering are false and made only for the purpose of this case.  The further statement that he was shocked to find that the car was a 2012 model is also made as an afterthought since the opposite parties had never promised to deliver a 2013 model car to the complainant.  The complainant had booked an Ertiga ZDI diesel car in the order booking form which is a contract between the complainant and the opposite parties.  The whole transaction is guided by the said Order Booking form.  In the said order booking form nowhere it is mentioned that the opposite parties will deliver a 2013 model Ertiga ZDI diesel car to the complainant.  The opposite parties had delivered a brand new car to the complainant and the same is not disputed by the complainant.  The Ertiga ZDI diesel car booked by the complainant was manufactured at the Maruti company during the year 2012.  As a dealer these opposite parties had issued a Sale Certificate date 07.05.2013 to the complainant for the purpose of registering the vehicle.  The vehicle was supplied to these opposite parties by the manufacturer during November 2012 and only because of that these opposite parties happened to show the model as 2012 in the sale letter.  After the issuance of the sale certificate, the part of the dealer is over and it is for the Registering Authority to issue the RC book with the necessary details.  The 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are only the dealers of Maruti and in the terms and conditions of the Order Booking form it is clearly stated that the period of delivery shown in the form is only an approximate period and the vehicle will be delivered as per the supply of the vehicles from the manufacturer.  The manufacturer will issue a communication showing the cut-off chassis numbers of all the vehicle of a particular year to the Transport Commissioner of various State’s Transporting Authorities informing him that the vehicles beyond the chassis numbers shown in the said communication was manufactured in that particular year.  On the basis of that information the Transport Commissioner will issue a circular to all the RTOs in the state and they will register that vehicle showing the model of that particular year.  The Registering Authority will give the year of manufacture on the basis of the said details.  Being a dealer these opposite parties have no control whatsoever in these aspects of the vehicle.  Here in this case the chassis number of the complainant’s vehicle is MA3FLEB1500152601 which is included in the 2012 model numbers as per the communication issued by the manufacturer and on that basis, naturally the vehicle happened to be registered as a 2012 model vehicle.  The chassis numbers for 2013 model Ertiga ZDI diesel car starts from MA3FLEB1500160957 as per the communication issued by the manufacturer to the Regional Transport Commissioner, Trivandrum.  The statement of the complainant that these opposite parties had sold a 2012 vehicle to him believing to be a 2013 model is not correct and not relevant in this case.  In this case the vehicle delivered to the complainant was a brand new vehicle supplied as per the contract between the complainant and these opposite parties and the complainant also has no dispute in that regard.  The statement of the complainant that many other dealers in Trivandrum had offered 2012 model cars at discounts varying from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- on the market price in April 2013 and yet the complainant did not opt for the same and he was insistent on getting a 2013 model itself and it is only because the 3^rd opposite party represented that they are having ready stock of 2013 model did the complainant choose to accept the same are all false and made only for the purpose of this case.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of any of the opposite parties and no unfair trade practice is committed by any of the opposite parties.  No mental agony or loss suffered by the complainant and so the complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the opposite parties 1 and 3. 

2^nd opposite party filed version contending as follows:  The present complaint is not maintainable against this opposite party.  2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles and does not/did not sell the vehicles so manufactured by it directly to any individual customer.  This opposite party sells/invoices the vehicles to its dealers under the dealership agreement.  The dealer sells the vehicles to their customers under their own invoice as per the terms and conditions settled between the dealer and individual customer.  This opposite party is not liable for any act of omission or commission on the part of dealer as the transaction of sale is independent between the dealer and its customer and this opposite party is not privy of sale transaction.  The relationship between the 2^nd opposite party and its dealers including 1^st opposite party is governed by the provisions of dealership agreement executed between them and is based on the principal to principal as is evident from clause 5 of said agreement.  The dealer including 1^st opposite party is a separate and independent legal entity to carry on its business of sale of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles with their customers as per the terms and conditions of sale of vehicles settled between them.  This opposite party has not issued any advertisement as alleged.  It is stated that the complainant has booked the vehicle in question after mutually settled the terms and conditions of sale with 1^st opposite party.  It is reiterated that the 2^nd opposite party does not sell vehicles so manufactured by it to any individual customer directly.  The 2^nd opposite party sells the vehicles to its authorized dealers including 1^st opposite party against C-form under the Central Sales Tax Act.  The dealers including 1^st opposite party sell the vehicles to their customers under their own invoice and sale certificate as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  The complainant on his own volition has purchased the vehicle in question from 1^st opposite party.  It is denied that 2^nd opposite party gave a certificate of sale in which the year of manufacture is written as 2013.  The complainant failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claims against 2^nd opposite party.  It is denied that 2^nd opposite party has sold 2012 year model of vehicle to the complainant as alleged.  It is reiterated that the 2^nd opposite party being manufacturer does not sell vehicles to any individual customer.  It is denied that the complainant was put to severe shock, mental agony and pain due to alleged action of 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant has not made any specific allegations against 2^nd opposite party and filed a false and concocted complaint against 2^nd opposite party.  The alleged sale transaction forming subject matter has been executed between complainant and 1^st opposite party only, to which 2^nd opposite party is not privity.  The 2^nd opposite party is not jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to complainant as alleged.  There is no cause of action arose against 2^nd opposite party as the complainant has neither booked nor taken delivery of vehicle from 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party has not issued any document to the complainant as alleged.  There is no cause of action between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party. 

Points raised:

1. Whether the allegation against the opposite parties is proved?
2.  Relief and costs if any?

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed affidavit along with 8 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P8.  Opposite parties 1 & 3 also filed affidavit.   Copy of the Order Booking form dated 09.04.2013 is marked as Ext. P1.  Copy of tax/vehicle invoice is marked as Ext. P2.  Copy of the Sale Certificate dated 07.05.2013 is marked as Ext. P3.  The ex-showroom price of the car was Rs.8,91,166/-.  Copy of the Motor Insurance Certificate issued by ICICI Lombard is marked as Ext. P4.  Copy of vehicle data sheet dated 07.05.2013 is marked as Ext. P5.  Copy of parking ticket dated 19.11.2012 is marked as Ext. P6.  Copy of certificate of vehicle order and delivery dated 10.05.2013 is marked as Ext. P7.  Printout of details from the website for Chassis No. MA3FLEBIS00152601 LC is marked as Ext. P8.  The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in selling to him a 2012 model car claiming to be a 2013 model car in May 2013.  Thus prima facie, the complaint is maintainable before this Forum.  The 2^nd opposite party admits that the car sold is a 2012 model car.  But they are not aware as to whether the dealer-1^st opposite party- has represented to the complainant that it is a 2013 model car.  They say that the dealing between the dealer and the manufacturer is one between the principal to principal and not of principal to dealer.  The nature of agreement between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party is not known to the complainant.  As far as he is concerned all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the loss caused to the complainant and hence the manufacturer 2^nd opposite party is also a necessary party to these proceedings.  It is admitted by the opposite parties that the car sold is a 2012 model itself.  The defences they raise are that (a) the complainant was not specific that he wanted a 2013 model car.  It has not been mentioned in the order booking form that a 2013 model car would be provided.  (b) The car sold is a new car.  So the complainant needn’t be bothered about the year of manufacture.  Date of sale is more important.  (c)  Once a car is sold and sale certificate is issued no further queries can be entertained.   (d) There is no practice of offering discounts to year before models by any dealer.   However the opposite parties failed to give reply with regard to why they issued Ext. P7 certificate to the complainant claiming that the car is of 2013-if they knew very well that the car is manufactured in the year 2012.  There is no answer to the discrepancies in the various documents issued.  In Ext. P3 sales certificate the year of manufacture is written as November 2012.  In Ext. P4 Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy also the year of manufacture is shown as 2012.  However in Ext. P5 vehicle data sheet issued by the 1^st opposite party, the year of the manufacture is shown as November 2013-a date which was yet to come whereas this complaint was filed on 24.05.2013.  So it is very clear that there is deficiency in service from the opposite parties. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation within two months of receipt of this order, failing which this amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of default till the date of realization.  Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) is allowed as cost of this complaint.       

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of February 2016.

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER 

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 201/2013

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Vinu. S

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of Order Booking form dated 09.04.2013

P2     - Copy of tax/vehicle invoice

P3     - Copy of sale certificate dated 07.05.2013

P4     - Copy of Motor Insurance Certificate issued by ICICI Lombard

P5     - Copy of vehicle data sheet dated 07.05.2013

P6     - Copy of parking ticket dated 19.11.2012

P7     - Copy of certificate of vehicle order dated 10.05.2013

P8     - Print out of details from website for chassis MA3FLEBIS00152601

            LC

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb