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. On 21/05/2017 the complainant who purchased Omni Van from 1st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.42,000/- vide registration No.KL-03E-804. It is contented that the 1st and 2nd opposite party maid to believe him that 6 months warranty is for the said vehicle and it’s in good condition. On 03/06/2017 the vehicle has become defective and taken to 3rd opposite party’s work shop. And again on 11/06/2017 the vehicle taken to the same opposite party’s work shop and paid an amount of Rs.5,246/- and Rs.255/- respectively. It is contented that on the next day onwards again the vehicle has become defective and the fact informed to the opposite parties. They did not redress the complaint there by on 06/07/2017 the complainant sent as legal notice to the opposite party but even then they failed to redress the graveness. According to the complainant the act of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice so that they are liable to the complainant. Hence the case for refund of the paid amount Rs.47,501/- compensation cost etc. etc.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for appearance. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a joint version as follows. According to them the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is admitted that the opposite party who sold the vehicle to the complainant as alleged. It is denied that they assured warranty of 6 months or good condition of the vehicle as contented by the complainant. It is stated that the opposite parties sold it ‘vehicle as on condition’. According to them they did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. Therefore the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. On the basis of the complaint, version and records before us we framed the following issues for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
- Whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
- Regarding the relief and costs?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as PW1. Through PW1 Ext.A1 to A7 were marked. Ext.A1 is the customer details of pre-owned car of the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the delivery receipt dated 24/05/2017. Ext.A3 is the cash receipt dated 11/06/2017. Ext.A4 is the copy of RC Book. Ext.A5 is the copy of Insurance Certificate. Ext.A6 is an advocate notice dated 5/07/2017. Ext.A7 is the cash memo dated 03/06/2017. On the other side when PW1 is cross examined by the learned counsel of the opposite party Ext.B1 was also marked. Ext.B1 is non-true value vehicle sale agreement. The opposite party did not adduce any oral or evidence on record except the Ext.B1. After the closure of evidence we heard both sides.
6. Point No. 1:- The opposite party seriously contented that the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts. When we appreciate the evidence of this case we can see that the complainant he who paid an amount of Rs.42,000/- to the opposite party and purchased the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-03E-804. The opposite parties are also admitted that the sales of the vehicle with the complainant. The complainant alleging the defect of the vehicle against the opposite parties and all the defect of the vehicle were happened due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Any way as per the above discussion we can find that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties are the service providers of the complainant. Hence Point No 1 found in favour of the complainant.
7. Point No.2&3:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.2 & 3 together. The complainant who is examined as PW1 deposed that he purchased the vehicle from the opposite parties with an assurance of 6 months warranty and good condition of the vehicle. In order to substantiate the contention the complainant PW1 produced and marked Ext.A1 to Ext.A7. Ext.A1 is the customer details of pre-owned car of the 1st opposite party. When we look in to the Ext.A1 we can see that the opposite party sold the vehicle to the complainant for Rs.42,000/- and the signature of the complainant and sale executive of the 1st opposite party can be seen in Ext.A1. In Ext.A1 the entry of ‘no warranty, vehicle as on condition’ also can be seen. Ext.A2 is the delivery receipt which was signed by the complainant in favour of the 1st opposite party dated 24/05/2017. As per Ext.A2 apart from the vehicle, RC book copy, insurance policy copy, text token and duplicate key are transferred to the complainant. Ext.A3 is a bill issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant for an amount of Rs.255/- dated 11/06/2017. Ext.A4 is a copy of RC book in favour of the original registered owner Shibu. Ext.A5 is a copy of insurance certificate cum policy schedule dated 25/08/2016 which was issued by the original insurance company Ltd. It is seen that the insurance is for 26/08/2016 to 25/08/2017. Ext.A6 dated 5/07/2017 is an advocate notice issued by complainant’s counsel against the opposite parties. In the said notice the complainant demanded the refund of the price of the car of Rs.42,000/- from the opposite parties. Ext.A7 dated 03/06/2017 which shows that the complainant entrusted the vehicle for repair to the 1st opposite party from making necessary repairment and paid Rs.5,246/- for the same. According to PW1 he purchased the vehicle from the opposite party with good condition along with 6 months warranty when we verify Ext.A1 we can see that even at the time of sale i.e., 22/05/2017 it is clearly recorded that there is ‘no warranty’ for the vehicle and the ‘vehicle sold as on condition’ to the complainant. The complainant’s learned counsel argued that being illiterate person the complainant purchases the vehicle totally believing the assurance given by the opposite parties. The opposite party’s counsel argued that after verify all the records and after testing running condition of the vehicle the complainant purchased the vehicle. Any way we don’t think that this old vehicle has a warranty at the time of its purchase. It is so clear that the year and month of the manufacturer of the vehicle is on January 2000 as per Ext.A4 RC book. Therefore no prudent man can believed that the vehicle was enjoying any warranty at this time until and unless proved otherwise. The main remaining question to be considered is that whether the vehicle is on running condition after its repairement dated 03/06/2017. It is the definite case of PW1 is that the vehicle is not in running condition even after its repairement. So the opposite parties liable to repair the vehicle of the PW1 in running condition. The opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence except their version and Ext.B1. Ext.B1 dated 24/05/2017 shows that the vehicle does not have a warranty or any other commitment either form the AVG Motor or Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the prier owner of the vehicle. In cross examination of PW1 though he admitted signature seen in Ext.B1 he categorically stated that he did not know English language. If so we can infer that without knowing the contents of Ext.B1 he purchase the vehicle by paying an amount of Rs.42,000/- it is to be noted that if a person who purchase a pre-owned car from the opposite parties it is to be presume that, such persons who purchase the car totally believing the goodwill and the assurance of these opposite parties. Moreover it is proved that the 1st opposite party who have done repairing work in the vehicle on 03/06/2017 as per Ext.A7 and received Rs.5,246/- from the complainant.
8. On the basis of the above discussion we would like to found that there was no warranty for the vehicle at the time of its purchase by the complainant. However it is proved that though the complainant’s spent an amount of Rs.42,000/- for the vehicle as per Ext.A1 the vehicle was not in running condition even after the repairment as per Ext.A7. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to repair the vehicle in running condition because the complainant PW1 is a bona-fide purchaser. When we evaluate the evidence of this opposite parties we can see that all the opposite parties are Managers or Senior Sales Executive of AVG Motors. The 1st to 3rd opposite parties are jointly and severely liable to the complainant. Therefore Point No 2&3 found in favour of the complainant.
9. In the result we pass the following orders.
1. The opposite parties are hereby directed to repair the vehicle of the complainant in running condition with in one month of date of receipt of this order and obtain a certificate from the officer not below the rank of a Motor Vehicle Inspector ( Pathanamthitta District ), Government of Kerala.
2. The complainant is directed to entrust the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party (authorized service center) for the purpose of repairment as per order No.1 within 10 days of receipt of this order and also directed to intimate the said entrustment of the vehicle to 1st & 2nd opposite party forthwith.
3. If the opposite parties failed to comply order No.1 even after the entrustment of the vehicle by the complainant as per order No.2 the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of the vehicle Rs.42,000/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Only)to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards. If this order is compiled by the opposite parties the complainant should have returned the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-03-E-804 to opposite parties.
4. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) along with a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand Only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2018.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : John.C.S
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Customer details of pre-owned car of the 1st opposite party.
A2 : Delivery receipt dated 24/05/2017.
A3 : Cash receipt dated 11/06/2017.
A4 : Copy of RC Book.
A5 : Copy of Insurance Certificate.
A6 : Advocate notice dated 5/07/2017.
A7 : Cash memo dated 03/06/2017.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : non-true value vehicle sale agreement.
(By Order)
Copy to:-
1. John,
S/o Thankamma, Residing at Chonkaraparambil,
P.C Kavala.P.O – 686 537, Paipad Village,
Changanacherry Taluk, Kottayam District
2. Manager,
M/s. AVG Motors Ltd., Vazhayil Building,
Thukalassery P.O., M.C.Road, Thiruvalla.
3. Roymon Antony,
Senior Sales Executive, AVG Motors Ltd.,
Vazhayil Building, M.C.Road, Thukalassery,
Thiruvalla.
4. Manager,
Authorized Service Centre, AVG Motors Ltd.,
Branch Office, M.C.Road, Perumthuruthy,
Thiruvalla -689 107.
5. The stock file.
