Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows. The complainant purchased a Maruthi Swift Desire Car bearing registration No.KL-03-R/8191 for Rs. 3,48,000/- on 18/02/2016 from the 1^st opposite party.  At the time of the purchase there was a meter reading of 79525/- for the said vehicle and the vehicle was not having any insurance.  According to the complainant for availing insurance and for necessary repairing work the complainant spend            Rs. 25,000/-. When the complainant entrusted the vehicle at Kuttipuzha Authorised Service Center of the vehicle it is learned that 1,88,501km was the kilometer reading of the said vehicle on 09/07/2016.  According to the complainant the 1^st complainant purposefully and deliberately committed fraud on speedometer and sold the vehicle to the complainant.  The act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their side.  Hence, this case to repay the price of the car Rs. 3,48,000/-, compensation, cost, etc, etc.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance. Bothe the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their separate version as follows.  The version of 2^nd opposite party is as follows.  According to 1^st opposite party the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is admitted that 1^st opposite party sold the vehicle to the complainant on 18/08/2016 for Rs. 3,48,000/-.  It is also admitted that 2^nd opposite party was the prior owner of the vehicle and he purchased the vehicle from 2^nd opposite party.  It is denied that he did not assure the meter reading of the vehicle as 79525 km as alleged by the complainant.  He contended that the kilometer reading of the vehicle at the time of the sale was Rs. 1,90,000/-.  It is also stated that at the time of the execution of the agreement dated: 18/08/2016 the validity of the insurance was up to 26/03/2017 and life tax was up to 31/12/2023.  According to him he purchased the said vehicle from 2^nd opposite party on 01/08/2016 after checking the details with the help of an authorized workshop of the said vehicle i.e., Popular Auto Mobiles, Pathanamthitta the car was in a good details at the time of sale to the complainant.  The complainant inspected all the details and status of the vehicle with the help of a mechanic at the time of purchase.  It is contended that the complainant entrusted the said vehicle to so many persons as ‘rent a car’ system. The use of the car as ‘Rent a Car’ might highly affected the condition of the car and increase of meter reading.  According to him he did not commit any fraud on the speedo meter as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore this opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. The version of 2^nd opposite party is as follows.  According to 2^nd opposite party the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is admitted that he sold his vehicle bearing registration No. KL-03R/8291 to 1^st opposite party by a sale agreement.  It is stated that the 1^st opposite party purchased the vehicle after verifying the reading of the speedo meter.  According to 2^nd opposite party he sold his vehicle to 1^st opposite party on August 2016 and 1^st opposite party has got all right to transfer the vehicle as the owner of the vehicle.  It is contended that he committed no unfair trade practice, against 1^st opposite party or against the complainant as alleged by the complainant.  There is no cause of action against this opposite party thereby the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to him.
5. This Forum perused the complaint, version and the records and framed the following issues for consideration.  

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

6.  In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in place of his chief examination and examined him as PW1.  Through PW1 Ext. A1 to Ext. A3 were also marked. Ext. A1 is the sale agreement between the complainant and 1^st opposite party dated: 18/08/2016. Ext. A2 is the copy of R.C. Book.  Ext. A3 is the Service details.   The complainant filed a petition to re-open his evidence at the time of opposite party’s evidence as I.A.89/2018.  This Forum allowed the I.A and marked Ext. A4 and Ext. A5 in pursuance of the additional affidavit of the complainant.  Ext. A4 is a copy of pre-invoice service chart issued by the complainant dated: 21/06/2017.  Ext. A5 is another bill issued by AVG Motors, Kozhencherry in favour of the complainant dated: 01/11/2017.  On the other side 1^st opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as DW1.  Through DW1 Ext. B1 is marked.  Ext. B1 is an agreement dated: 18/08/2016 between the complainant and 1^st opposite party.  After the closure of evidence we heard both side.
7. Point No.1: The opposite parties contended that the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  When we evaluate the evidence adduced by both sides it is revealed that the complainant he who purchased a Maruthi vehicle bearing registration No. KL-03R/8291 from 1^st opposite party for an amount of  Rs. 3,48,000/-.  It is also evidence to see that 2^nd opposite party is the person who sold the said vehicle to 1^st opposite party.  In the light of the transaction of the vehicle between the parties by receiving consideration we can come to a clear conclusion that the complainant is a consumer of 1^st opposite party and OP1 is the service provider of the complainant is a result of this transaction.  Hence Point.No.1 found in favour of the complainant.

                 8. Point Nos. 2 and 3:-   For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  In order to substantiate the contention of the complainant, as discussed earlier the complainant filed a proof affidavit along with five documents.  Ext. A1 is a sale agreement between the complainant and 1^st opposite party on 18/08/2016.  If we go through Ext. A1 it is revealed that the 1^st opposite party sold his vehicle on 18/08/2016 to the complainant and it is also stated that a life tax up to 31/01/2023 was paid and also mentioned that the vehicle is having a valid insurance up to 26/03/2017.  When we look into the bottom of Ext. A1 we can see a writing ‘meter reading 79525’.  When we peruse Ext. B1 we can see that said Exhibit is the original of Ext. A1 and also found that Ext. A1 and B1 are one and same.  In Ext. B1 we cannot see a writing of ‘meter reading’ as seen in Ext. A1.  So we can infer that at the time of executing the sale agreement there is no writing with regard to ‘meter reading’ as seen in Ext. A1.  Ext. A2 is a copy of R.C Book in favour of the complainant i.e., Gopalakrishnan T.N.  Ext. A3 is a document which is marked as ‘subject to proof’.  The said document is service details of the said vehicle.  Ext. A4 is a copy of pre-invoice service chart issued by the complainant dated: 21/06/2017 by authorized service agent AVG Motors. In Ext. A4 the meter reading is shown as 1,83,383 as on 11/04/2016 (last service date).  Ext. A5 is another bill issued by AVG Motors, Kozhencherry in favour of the complainant dated: 01/11/2017.  If we examine Ext. A5 we can find that the meter reading of the vehicle is 1,83,383 as on 11/04/2016.  The main allegation of PW1 is that 1^st opposite party committed some fraud on the speedo meter of the said vehicle and sold the vehicle to the complainant.  In order to the substantiate is contention he mainly relying the bottom rating seen in Ext. B1 as 79575.  When PW1 is cross-examined by 1^st opposite party he answered “Ext.A1  Intem-ao-äÀ doUnwKv Fgp-Xn-bn-«pt­m? CÔ.  If so the kilometer writing seen as above has no relevance at all.

                   9. In order to substantiate the contention of DW1 he filed a proof affidavit and deposed that when he sold the vehicle he explained the contention of the vehicle to PW1 and also informed that the vehicle is 2009 model and kilometers reading was 1,90,000 at the time of sale.  It is interesting to see that when PW1 filed his proof affidavit in paragraph 2 it is deposed that the meter reading of the vehicle was 79525km at the time of sale and 2 establish this fact he produce Ext. A1 before this Forum.  If we look into Ext. A1 it is so visible to see that Ext. A1 is a carbon copy and the writing of the kilometer reading is not seen as part of a carbon copy.  On the basis of the above evidence we can come to a clear conclusion that complainant PW1 totally failed to adduce any evidence to show that the meter reading of his vehicle was 79525 at the time of sale.  As discussed above we can see that the complainant failed to adduce any substantial evidence to prove the deficiency in service or unfair trade on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party as alleged.  Therefore the complaint derive any merit at all.  Point No.2&3 found against the complainant. 

8. In the result we pass the following orders.

(1). The case is dismissed.

(2). No order for cost.

               Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24^th day of September, 2018.

                                                                                                                                          (Sd/-)

                                                                                                                        P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                        (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               : (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Gopalakrishnan

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Sale agreement between the complainant and 1^st opposite party on

        18/08/2016.

A2 :  Copy of R.C. Book.

A3 :  Service details.  

A4 : Copy of pre-invoice service chart issued by the complainant dated:

       21/06/2017.

A5 : Another bill issued by AVG Motors, Kozhencherry in favour of the complainant

       dated: 01/11/2017. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 : Joymon P.T

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

B1 : Agreement dated: 18/08/2016 between the complainant and 1^st opposite

       party. 

                                                                                                          (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) T.N. Gopalakrishnan,

 Udaya Bhavan, Thirumoolapuram.P.O, Thiruvalla.

                        (2) Joymon.P.T,

               Pukapuraparambil, Parunilam, Kodoor Village, Meenachil

               Thalook.

 (3) Biju.P. Thomas,

                P.T.S & Sons Rubbers, Elanthoor, Pathanamthitta.

           (4) The Stock File.