(Delivered on 13/10/2016)

PER MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE, HON’BLE PRESIDENT.

1.         Heard submissions at the Bar .This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and order dated 19.09.2014  in the consumer Complaint case no. 549 of 2012  passed by the District consumer disputes redressal Forum at  Nagpur  where by the Complaint was partly allowed . The complainant was entitled to claim the new Car facility of the keyless entry as promised by the Opposite Party with sum of Rs 8800/- else if Car is not given, to refund the price paid by the Complainant.  Compensation for mental and physical harassment  was awarded in the sum of  12 % per annum on the sum of Rs 4,34,089 and sum of Rs 8800/-, Costs  in the sum of Rs 10000/= was  also awarded. Order was required to be complied within 30 days  failing which the 15% interest was payable upon the sums due . As against the respondent no 2 the  Complaint was dismissed.

2.        Facts stated briefly are as under :-

            Opposite Party in the Complaint proceedings is dealer and Manufacturer respectively. The Car model Hyundai Santro XGLS/BSIV was bought by the Complainant relying upon the brochure and promises as to warrantee etc.  For the price of Rs 4,34, 089/-, plus Rs 8800/- for accessories .Upon  attractive  offer advertisement published on 20.04.2012 published in Newspaper ‘Hitawada’ the Ops offered the Gift of 32inch +81 CM  screen Sony Bravia LCD TV worth Rs. 30,900/-  and exchange value of the old car  if given to dealer in the exchange  sum of Rs 20,000/-. The price of the Car was shown as Rs 4,34,114/-in the rate card  with effect from date 01.04.2012. The Complainant had booked the Car  by payment made by Cheque  no 822628 dated 21.04.2012 drawn upon the ICICI Bank Civil Lines Nagpur Branch for sum of Rs.11000/- and Cheque no. 822629 dated 21.04.2012  drawn upon the ICICI bank for sum of Rs 48,000/-  . Paid the price Rs 2,75000/-  by the Cheque drawn upon the  State Bank Of India and  sum of Rs.  2,75000/- was paid by Credit Card ,  and by Cheque no 533125 dated 21.04.2014  drawn upon the ICICI Bank for sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, cash Rs. 89 /- to make full payment of price . This is not dispute.

3.         On behalf of the Appellant it is contended that On  14.04.2012 the complainant had visited the showroom   with intent to purchase the Car  and had seen all the Models  and decided to buy the Santro Xing GLS Model Motor Car . 01 .05. 2012 when the Complainant inspected the Car to be bought for the first time, she had found that the Car was not fitted with the door locking system. The Complainant found that the Car sold to her by practicing misrepresentation as the car was manufactured in June 2011 and sold in June 2012  to the Complainant at new price rate applicable with effect from 01.04.2012  and thus the manufacturer and the dealer  indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice .

4.        In our view in the facts and circumstances revealed  when the complainant had paid the full price and depended upon offer in the newspaper and the broucher  ,it was duty of the Manufacturer and the Dealer to sell the new Car manufactured in the year  2012  with the latest accessories and equipment, including keyless entry ., central locking self-locking door  The complainant finding the deficiency in service  rightly refused to take the delivery as the Car was without the equipment of key less entry .

5.        The transaction was dated 01.05.2012. The complainant served notice dated 03.05.2012 through the Advocate upon the Ops.It was replied on 18.05.2012 by OP no. 1 through Advocate Shri Vora, admitting the offer at the rate with effect from 01.04.2012 along with the LCD TV, admitting the receipt of the price of Rs. 4, 34,089/- however denying that the Car of the 2012 model was to be sold.

6.        We found that the OP were liable to disclose presence of  the equipments , accessories available  with the latest of the selected Model of the Car  so as to deliver the latest Car as desired by the Consumer without any misrepresentation . Consumer if misrepresented as to the year of the manufacturer of the Car selected, offer made publicly in news paper but not made available to the Buyer.In such case  vendor is answerable as no Buyer would like to buy one year old Car model for the payment of the  latest car price declared and quoted  by the dealer and  Manufacturer. Offer of LCD  TV, concessions  if any declared by advertisement in newspaper Daily Hitawada in Nagpur  etc. all the gifts promised ought to have been presented  by the Manufacturer or dealer concerned . In the light of the examination of the above, we hold that the decision of the District Forum below is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of merit.

7.        In the facts and circumstances having found that the learned District forum had applied its mind properly to the facts and circumstances of the case to pass the just and proper award. We do not find any just and valid ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and award. Appeal is found without merits hence the appeal is dismissed. Cost of the appeal is quantified in the sum of Rs 25,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent (complainant).