Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/48

ARVIND MISHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYAL FORD - Opp.Party(s)

11 Dec 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 14.12.2015 passed in C.C.No.421/2008 by District Commission, Satna)

 

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA.                                                                        …          APPELLANT

 

           Versus

                 

1. ROYAL FORD, ROYAL CAR PVT.LTD. SATNA

2. FORD INDIA PVT.LTD. NEW CHENNAI                                                 …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                    

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

   

              

                                      O R D E R

 

11.12.2023

 

            Shri S. K. Jigyasi, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Priyank Patni, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

            Shri Prateek Giri Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        This is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.421/2008-, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2.                The facts of the case as stated in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Ford Fiesta Classic car on 09.02.2013 from the opposite party no.1 after making payment of Rs.7,45,216/- and paid Rs.26,784/- towards registration and Rs.53,000/- towards insurance on

-2-

11.02.2013. It is alleged that at the time of delivering the vehicle it is told that the vehicle of make year 2013 but on 13.02.2013 at the time of receiving sale letter, it is found that the vehicle was of make year 2012. It is alleged that by selling a vehicle of make year 2012 in 2013 stating make year 2013, the opposite parties have committed deceit and fraud.  It is further alleged that as per advertisement given in daily newspaper ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ dated 05.02.2013 discount of Rs.50,000/- and loyalty bonus of Rs.10,000/- was not given to him. The complainant therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party no.1-dealer denying the allegations made in the complaint has stated that after taking test drive the complainant had purchased vehicle of his own choice. It is denied that they have committed fraud by stating that the vehicle is of the year 2013. It is submitted that on 31.01.2013 they have issued the bills, insurance of the vehicle but at the request of complainant on depositiong of registration fee on 09.02.2013 sale letter was issued to him. On 11.02.2013, the complainant took all the papers and never objected about make year. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The opposite party no.2-manufacturer in its reply has submitted that the complainant has purchased the car directly from the dealer and

-3-

there has been no direct interaction between the complainant and the opposite party no.2. In case, if it is found and proved that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle, only in that case, the opposite party no.2 can be held liable.

4.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has wrongly reached to a conclusion that the complainant was aware that the vehicle was of make year 2012. In the bill make year was not shown by committing deceit and fraud. He argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in dismissing the complaint. The impugned order of the District Commission is against the law and principles of natural justice and deserves to be set-aside.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-dealer argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. The complainant after full satisfaction has purchased the car and took all the documents. The complainant was not entitled to get benefit of the newspaper advertisement and loyalty bonus is being given to the customers who are purchasing the four wheeler first time.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-manufacturer argued that there is no direct interaction between the

 

-4-

complainant and the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 cannot be held liable for any acts of the opposite party no.1.

6.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we find that from the documents C-3 and C-4, it is established the vehicle was of make year-November 2012 and the complainant at the time of purchasing the vehicle took all the bills. At that time he must have verified all the bills and documents and was very well aware of all these facts as stated by the opposite party no.1 dealer.  These facts were also not controverted by the complainant.  The complainant has stated that from the sale letter he came to know that the vehicle was of make year 2012 but he failed to file such sale letter.

7.                We have also gone through C-9, the newspaper advertisement regarding discount of Rs.50,000/-. On going through the same we find that the said advertisement is related to Figo and Classic cars, whereas the complainant had purchased Fiesta Classic car which is evident from tax invoice C-1 and therefore he is not entitled to get any benefits as shown in the advertisement.

8.                It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant in his complaint as also in appeal has alleged that the opposite parties have committed deceit and fraud by selling 2012 make year vehicle in the year 2013 stating make year 2013. It is very well settled principle that the

-5-

complaints alleging deceit and fraud are not maintable before the Consumer Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

9.                In view of the foregoing discussion we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order so as to call our interference in appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is affirmed.

10.              In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

                        (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr.Srikant Pandey)           

                  Acting President                         Member