SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

             This is a  complaint filed  by the complainant under sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the Ops to pay  compensation of  Rs.5 lakhs to complainant  for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part.

      The case of the complainant in brief:-

        The complainant approached 1^st OP on August 2017 for enquiring about the Skoda rapid Ambition M.T. 2017 model vehicle. The 1^st OP told the complainant that the complainant purchased 2016 model vehicle he will get rupees one lakh discount in the price of the vehicle and that he paid the bill amount on or before 2017 August.  Moreover the complainant will get a special offer to go to Malaysia for 2 persons and road service assistance.  The 1^st OP also told to the complainant that this offer is available only to 2016 model vehicle and that too is valid only upto 2017 August. Hence the complainant opted to purchase 2016 model  vehicle having lesser price than 2017 model vehicle.  At the time of purchase of 2016 model vehicle the complainant  did not get the original invoice bill and the user’s manual at the time of delivery of the vehicle.  OP had offered cash discount  of Rs.one lakh, but they have given discount only Rs.75,000/- stating that Rs.25,000/- is for Malaysian trip also.  After the purchase of the vehicle the complainant realised that old vehicle was charged more than the new vehicle and the offer available to 2017 model vehicle also.  Then the complainant came to understand that 1^st OP through their  unfair trade practice persuaded the complainant to purchase their old stock by suppressing the real price of 2016 model vehicle and 2017 model vehicle.  Then the complainant had contacted the executive  he stood strong on the fact that there is no such cash discount offer in the price value of 2017 model vehicle.  But the complainant learned that there was an offer of Rs.1lakh for the new model vehicle from other dealers of 2^nd OP and also from the executive of 1^st OP’s Kozhikode showroom.  Moreover the complainant stated the non-issuance of the bill and user’s manual of the vehicle and also there was an issue regarding the inability to access “My Skoda”  mobile app even after 3 years”.  While submitting the mobile app using the chassis number the OTP is receiving the number ending in 3549.  So it might be the 1^st owner of the said vehicle.  Therefore the 1^st OP might have sold a used car to the complainant.  It is a very useful app to learn everything about the vehicle including the service, spare parts, cost etc.  The complainant is sure about the fact that  he had received a car that  was either used or one that has met with an accident because of the reason like the running vehicle being  stopped suddenly without any reason and unable to start the vehicle and the Ops did not gave the warranty protection to the repair works done by the complainant.  The act of the Ops the complainant and his family caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs .  Hence the complaint.

       After filing the complaint notice was issued to both opposite parties. Both  Ops entered appearance before the commission and  filed  their written version.  1^st OP contended that the offer of Rupees one lakh included  the Malaysian trip of 2 members also.  The OP has given Rs.75,000/- as discount and kept Rs.25000/- for Malaysian trip.  The original tax invoice was issued to the complainant on 23/8/2017 when the complainant delivered the car.  The final settlement sheet includes vehicle details and cost the vehicle and the amount collected from the customer also.  The tax invoice has been given to the complainant at the time of dealing of the vehicle it is mandatory for getting registration  from RTO.  The bank also  needs tax invoice to grant hypothecation to the bank.  The 1^st OP kept Rs.25000/- as Malaysian trip.  But the complainant has not respond the same.  All car includes 4 year warranty and Rs.9999/- for maintenance  package not as warranty.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the complaint and the  complaint may be dismissed.

      2^nd OP contended that the purchase of the car is strictly within the purview of  1^st OP and 2^nd OP is not related with the sales of the car.  Moreover  the complainant had purchased the vehicle had offered him a 2016 model vehicle with a discount of Rs.1,00,000/- and a free Malaysian  trip the offer was not given by 2^nd OP.  Moreover 2^nd OP is not known to the complainant.  2^nd OP has no role in the sale price or preparation of the bill.  So 2^nd OP is not liable for the alleged mental agony suffered by the complainant and the complaint may be dismissed.

    On the  basis of the rival contentions by the  pleadings  the following issues  were framed for  consideration.

1 . Whether there is any deficiency  of service on the part of  the opposite parties .

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

3.  Relief and cost.

      The evidence consists of the  oral testimony of PW 1 and Exts.A1 to A25 were marked.  From the side of opposite parties  no oral evidence and no documents  marked.

Issue  No.1:   

     The complainant adduced evidence  before the commission by  submitting   his  chief  affidavit  in lieu  of  his chief examination to the  tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying  the contentions in the version.  Complainant examined as PW1. The documents Exts.A1 to A25  marked on his part to substantiate his case.   Ext.A1 is  the proforma  invoice dtd.4/8/2017 it is clearly stated that on road price total Rs.10,33,828/-.  But in his evidence  PW1 states that  2016 model FSp¡pIbmsW¦n 1 e£w cq] Ipd¨v 9,33,828/- cq] BIpw F¶v ]dªp.      1 e£w cq]  Ipd¨p In«nbXpsIm­mWv Rm³  2016 tamU  car hm§nbXv .  As per Ext.A4 dtd.17/8/2017  picture of advertisement in Mathrubhoomi news paper to get a special offer to go to Malaysia for 2 persons.  But in this case the complainant has not obtained Malaysian trip offer.  PW1 also states that total  car sâ hne  9,90,261/- cq]bmWv  AXn \n¶v 75,000/- cq]     discount Ign¨v _m¡n    915,264/- cq]bmWv   Rm³  company bv¡v AS¨Xv.  But Rs.25,000/- is not obtained for the Malaysian trip.  Ext.A12 contained the quotation  received from  Pinnacle Kozhikode and Ext.A13 is the  price list copy.  Ext.A14 is the quotation received from the Manikandan Skoda also.  Ext.A24 (series)  is the job card and Ext.A25 is the statement of accounts from SBI.  On 30/12/2020 the complainant filed an IA. No. 93/2020 before the commission to direct the Ops to cause produce the price list of Skoda Rapid Ambition MT and the offers from the manufacturer towards warranty services and discounts offered  by the dealer for the  vehicle  manufactured in the year 2016 and 2017, during the months  June, July, August 2017.  But the  Ops not produced  the price list of  vehicle in the year 2016,2017 during the months June, July, August 2017. The adverse inference will be taken.  So we hold that there is deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.   Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

  Issue Nos.2&3:  

       As discussed above the Ops are selling the vehicle in the year 2017 August which was manufactured in the year 2016 alleging that the offers are  available only to the 2016 model vehicle.  But the Ops suppressed the material fact that the same offers of cash discounts, foreign trip(Malaysia) and service assistance to the  2017 model vehicles also.  In order to prove the  Ops’ case no oral or documentary evidence produced before the commission.  As per IA 93/2020 direct the Ops to produce the price list of Skoda Rapid Ambition MT and the discount offered by the dealer for the manufacturer towards warranty and service and discounts offered by the dealer for the vehicle manufactured in the year 2016 and 2017 during the month June, July, August 2017.  But the Ops are not produce the  documents or not filed any affidavit for the non production of documents.  So the non production of documents clearly shows that the price of the vehicle, offers to the vehicle and other maintenance package to the vehicle manufactured in the year 2016&2017 are same in the months June, July, August 2017. So we hold that the opposite parties are directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant.  The act of the Ops, the complainant and his family caused mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.   Therefore we hold that the opposite parties jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other loss  of the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.  Thus the issues No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.

         In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the  opposite parties  jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other losses incurred by  the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost  within  30 days of  receipt  of this order.   In default the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- carry   interest @9% per annum  from the date of  order till  realization .   Failing which the complainant is at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019. 

Exts:

A1&A2- Proforma invoice dt.4/8/17

A3- Sales order booking dt.4/8/17

A4-Paper publication in mathrubhoomi daily

A5&A6- final settlement sheet dtd.17/8/17

A7-email copy dtd 28/8/17

A8- reply from Skoda India 28/8/17

A9- letter by SBI dt.22/11/17

A10- insurance policy

A11-copy of RC

A12&A14 -quotation copy

A13-copy of price list

A15-communication  information dt.7/9/17

A16-Crane service  dt.16/7/18

A17-pendrive

A18-receipt dt.3/8/19

A19- tax invoice 3/8/19

A20- job card 3/7/19

A21- cash boucher 13/7/19

A22&A23- tax invoice  dt.13/7/19

A24-(series) Job card and tax invoice

A25- statement of accounts from SBI

PW1- Jithesh.P.P- complainant

Sd/                                                             Sd/                                               Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                             MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew.                         Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                      /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR