Date of Filing: 20/05/2015
Date of Order:06/12/2017
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed in person U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps and prays for orders to direct the O.Ps to insert German Technology Headlights and Fog lamps at free of cost, in failing which to do so seeking direction the O.Ps to exchange the present i20 Magna diesel vehicle to Elite i20 diesel and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation along with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that on 6.2.2015 the complainant had purchased i20 Magna Diesel car from Trident Hyundai, Bangalore as per advised by the sales executives the complainant purchased the said car as more discounts were offered while purchasing. Further stated that, the complainant enquired whether fog lamp can be inserted, headlight bulbs can be changed as the power of lamps is weak and the complainant also asked the sales executives whether the bulbs, relay, cutouter can be changed and bulbs of 90/130 or 100/130 can be put in order to get more focus. The complainant stated that, the executives advised the complainant that the technician at Sheshadripuram, Bangalore will insert fog lamp and change the head light bulbs, but when the complainant enquired at that service station they informed the complainant that it is not possible for this model. Further stated that the said car is having four bulbs, the service station technician informed the complainant that it is not possible to change the cutouter, relay, bulbs because they have to insert new assembly and the cost of new assembly is around Rs.12,000/- to Rs.22,000/- (German).
3. Further complainant states that, the sales executives had given Verna Fludric, i20 Elite car for test drive. But the complainant purchased i20 Magna diesel car 2014 model but the O.Ps did not given the said car for test drive prior to purchase. Further complainant states that Elite model vehicle it has very good pickup performance but i20 Magna there is no pickup performance, more engine sound , no mileage and the sales executive have suppressed this fact and cheated the complainant. Further states that, the complainant has invested lakhs together to purchase the car in question and he is ready to pay the extra amount to purchase the elite model vehicle in case of replacement. Further stated that, complainant has to incur expenditure of Rs.12,000/- to fit HRD lights or German technology lights of Rs.23,000/-. But the O.Ps did not do any needful to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
4. Upon issuance of notice O.P.No.1 and 2 entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version.
5. In the version of O.P No.1 it is contended that complainant by suppressing the material facts filed this complaint also the complaint is frivolous, and based on false and vexatious grounds. It is admitted that complainant has purchased the Magna diesel car bearing reg. No. KA 04 MP 6522 from this O.P dealership. It is denied as false and incorrect that the sales executives advised the complainant to purchase the Magna vehicle in question is having more discount and offers. It is contended that O.P .No.2 is the manufacturer who will decide regarding the discounts and accordingly the complainant has availed the standard discounts prescribed by the manufacturer and at no point of time this O.P misguided the complainant. Further contended that at no point of time the executives of the O.P.No.1 assured the complainant that the alleged car headlight can be changed and can be put 90/130 or 100/130 bulbs to get more power. Further contended that when the complainant approached the O.P.No.1 for collecting the number plate and asked the O.P.No.1 executives that he was driving in highway he felt low focus during night hours and hence intends to change the headlight cutouter(wiring kit) and the O.P executives informed the complainant if he intends to change the same he has to go for protected extra headlight fittings and clearly stated that this is not suggested by the Government and as per the Government standards and directions of auto research of India the manufacturer when manufactured the vehicle according to their norms. It is also contended that fog lamps can be fitted to alleged car and not HID lights (High Intensity Discharge Lights). Further contended that the complainant himself purchased the i20 magna diesel since the magna is lesser than Elite car. Further contended that, one i20 magna and i20 Elite both car engines and gear box are same and both engines are made with 1400 cc with CRD engine and performance of the both engines are same. Hence contended that allegations of the complainant is false and incorrect. With the above grounds O.Ps prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. In the version of O.P No.2, it is contended that, there is no iota of claim regarding manufacturing defect. It is contended that, on 16.4.2015 O.P.No.1 categorically replied the complainant that they had never assured to provide the head light bulbs at free of cost. Further contended that, when the complainant has been explained the details of the cost to change the head light lamps hence contended that there is no deficiency in service. Further contended that if the complainant wants to replace his car he must be ready to bear expenses of such up gradation. Further contended that this O.P deals with all its dealers on principle to principle basis, any act, conduct, commission, omission representation by the dealer cannot and will not be made liable to this answering O.P. On other grounds this O.P by denying all other allegations of the complainant and ultimately prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
7. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties have filed his affidavit evidence and we also heard the arguments.
8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
9. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B): In the Negative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No. (A) & (B):-
10. On perusing the pleading of the parties, it is not in dispute that on 6.2.2015 the complainant had purchased i20 Magna Diesel car from Trident Hundai i.e. O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 is the manufacturer.
11. The sole allegation of the complainant is that prior to purchasing of the car the O.Ps not given the test drive but they have given the Verna Fludric i20. Further alleged that the O.Ps assured the complainant regarding change of high density bulbs to get more focus but on enquiry it is informed to the complainant that it will cost more than Rs.12,000/- for fitting HRD lights or Rs.23,000/- for German technology light.
12. Per-contra O.Ps denied that they never assured the complainant to change the HRD lights or German technology light at free of cost. Further contended that if the complainant is not satisfied against the test drive he himself did not refuse to purchase the car in question but by his own consent he has purchased the said car.
13. It is pertinent to note that, on careful perusal of the entire complaint averments nowhere the complainant alleged the word of deficiency in their service against the O.Ps. Furthermore, the complainant also did not allege any manufacturing defect in the car. In such event how can the complainant without any pleading and proof alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
14. The complainant grievance is that the O.Ps assured to fit the high intensity bulbs to get more power to facilitate the complainant while driving in the highway during night hours . It is worth to note that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Government time and again cautioned all the four wheelers vehicle owners/drivers not to use high intensity bulbs to their vehicle in order to avoid accidents. But unfortunately the complainant intends to change the high intensity bulbs at the cost of the O.Ps and the same is not feasible as per the Government norms. Furthermore, if the complainant wants to alter the lighting focus he has to go for extra fittings and bear expenses and no manufacturer will provide the extra fittings. Hence, the allegation of the complainant is devoid of merits. On perusal of the evidence of the complainant nothing is brought on record to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Viewing from any angle complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and hence not entitled for any relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly, we answered the Point No. (A) and (B) in the Negative.
POINT No. (C):
15. On the basis of answering the Points (A) and (B) and in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 6th Day of December 2017)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*RAK
