DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 15th day of December 2023.
Filed on: 21.03.2023
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C.No.196/2023
COMPLAINANT
Sainudheen, S/o.Muhammad, Vettikkat, Koovallur, Pin-686 671
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIY
Nazeer, S/o.Abdul Zamad, Fathima Manzil, Indira Junction, Aryad South, Alappuzha, Pin-688 006
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that a 2011 Swift KLO 5AD 9300 car was purchased by the complainant from Abdul Samad's son Naseer on December 18, 2022, for Rs.2,73,000. The seller assured that the car had only minor issues, like a replaced side mirror, and had been serviced at an authorized Maruti service center, with the odometer showing 112,500 km. However, a detailed inspection by a mechanic revealed multiple undisclosed issues. The car had undergone wheel alignment on October 5, 2022, at 139,727 km, suggesting unreported usage. Additionally, both front doors showed signs of impact, with shrunken rubber beading and broken company punch marks. The front windshield had been replaced and deceptively marked as original, and a counterfeit Maruti sticker was added. Furthermore, the bonnet and the trunk's lift side showed signs of welding, indicative of an accident. Due to these discoveries, the complainant is seeking legal action to return the car and demand compensation and the cost of the proceedings.
2) Notice
The Commission sent notices to the opposite party, which was acknowledged by them, but they did not file their version. Therefore, they have been set as ex-parte.
3). Evidence
The complainant had filed an ex-parte proof affidavit and 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A 5.
Exhibit A-1: Copy of the Expert Opinion from Panamdanam Motor Industries (Government Approved).
Exhibit A-2: Copy of the Vehicle Sale Agreement between the complainant and the opposite party.
Exhibit A-3: Photos of the Damaged Area of the Car.
Exhibit A-4: Copy of the Aadhar Card.
Exhibit A-5: Copy of the Report on Tyres-Wheels alignment issued by On Wheels Mundakayam dated 05.10-2022.
4) The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. Copy of the Vehicle Sale Agreement between the complainant and the opposite party. The receipt evidencing payment to the opposite party (Exhibits A-2). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant is seeking legal action to return the car and demand compensation and the cost of the proceedings and the associated mental distress, alleging unfair trade practices and a deficiency in service by the opposite party.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written versions despite having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
Factual Background:
The complainant alleges that he purchased a 2011 Swift car from the opposite party. The complainant was assured that the car had minor issues and had been serviced at an authorized Maruti service centre. However, upon detailed inspection by a mechanic, it was revealed that the car had undisclosed issues and signs of accidents and repairs. The opposite party did not file their version in response to the notice issued by the Commission, and as a result, they were set as ex-parte. The complainant provided evidence in the form of documents and an ex-parte proof affidavit.
A. Maintainability of the Complaint:
The complainant, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, qualifies as a consumer since they purchased the car for consideration as evidenced by the Vehicle Sale Agreement and payment receipts (Exhibits A-2). Therefore, the complaint is maintainable.
B. Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice:
The complainant alleged that there was a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party. The evidence presented, including an ex-parte proof affidavit and documents (Exhibits A-1 to A-5), was unchallenged by the opposite party. Their failure to file a written version amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. The evidence presented by the complainant supports their claims, including signs of undisclosed issues, accidents, and repairs in the car. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
C. Entitlement to Relief:
Considering the unchallenged evidence and the complainant's credible claims, it is evident that they suffered mental distress and incurred expenses due to the opposite party's actions. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to relief, including the return of the car, compensation for mental agony, and the cost of the proceedings.
We find in favour of the complainant on Issues i to vi, due to the serious service deficiency of the opposite party and unfair trade practices. The complainant has suffered considerable inconvenience, mental agony, hardship, and financial loss due to this negligence, mental agony, hardship, and financial loss.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party shall refund the sum of ₹2,73,000 (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy-Three Thousand) to the complainant, as this was the amount received from the complainant as consideration for the car in question, as per (Exhibit A-2).
- The Opposite Party shall pay a sum of ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental distress, hardships, and financial losses incurred by the complainant due to the service deficiency of the Opposite Party and their unfair trade practices
- The Opposite Party shall also pay a sum of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party shall be liable for the aforementioned directives and must adhere to them within 30 days of receiving this order. Failure to comply with the directives outlined in (i) and (ii) above will result in the accrual of interest at a rate of 9% per annum. Interest will be calculated from the date of payment until the directives are fully implemented and from the date of the complaint filing (21-03-2023) until recovery.
The Opposite Party shall have the liberty to take back the vehicle in question from the complainant within 30 days of complying with the above direction.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of December 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
The complainant had filed an ex-parte proof affidavit and 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A 5.
Exhibit A-1: Copy of the Expert Opinion from Panamdanam Motor Industries (Government Approved).
Exhibit A-2: Copy of the Vehicle Sale Agreement between the complainant and the opposite party.
Exhibit A-3: Photos of the Damaged Area of the Car.
Exhibit A-4: Copy of the Aadhar Card.
Exhibit A-5: Copy of the Report on Tyres-Wheels alignment issued by On Wheels Mundakayam dated 05.10-2022.
uk/
Date of Despatch
By Hand :
By Post :
