BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 21/12/2012

Date of Order : 21/12/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 712/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the complainant's case leading to this complaint are as follows :-

On 04-01-2013, the complainant purchased a 'Honda Jazz' car from the 2^nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 7,05,950/-. Not even 6 months had passed, when the 1^st opposite party brought out of new version of the same model and named it new Jazz with additional features and drastically slashing the price to almost one and a half lakhs of the price. The complainant has been misled into buying a vehicle, which has overvalued and over charged. The above conduct of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the differential amount overcharged by the opposite parties with penal interest. Thus, the complainant is before us with a prayer to declare the action of the opposite parties as unfair trade practice and also to get a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs towards the monitory loss suffered by her.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows :-

The Honda Jazz model was introduced in India by the 1^st opposite party in the year 2009 and was available in three variants ie. base model, select and Jazz X. There is difference in price of variants due to difference in features. The 1^st opposite party on 18-08-2011 launched new Honda Jazz with minor model charge in three variants and reduced the price due to the following factors :-

1. Minor model change of the product allowing for recovery of initial investment made for development of the model.

2. Economics of scale have been achieved after launch of Brio since some parts are common.

3. Sourcing base changed with regard to import of parts/components.

4. Localization content of parts/components increased.

There has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The 2^nd opposite party filed a separate version stating similar contentions that of the 1^st opposite party.

4. The power of attorney of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the complainant. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether there was unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant?

6. Point No. i. :- It is not in dispute that on 04-01-2011, the complainant purchased a brand new Honda Jazz car from the 2^nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 7,05,950/- which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. According to the complainant, within 6 months from the date of purchase of the car from the 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st opposite party introduced a new version of the same model car by drastically reducing its price to the tune of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The complainant maintains that the above conduct of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and she is entitled to get compensation from them. The opposite parties vehemently and vigorously contended that the reduction of price of the car depends on various factors and that cannot be termed as unfair trade practice within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

7. We have carefully gone through the definition of “unfair trade practice” as defined in Section 2 (1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, which is reproduced for convenience.

“Unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices namely :

(1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which, -

(i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model ;

(ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade ;

(iii) falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, reconditioned or old goods as new goods.

(iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have ;

(v) represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have;

(vi) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any gods or services ;

(vii) gives to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on an adequate or proper test thereof.

Provided that where a defence is raised to the effect that such warranty or guarantee is based on adequate or proper test, the burden of proof of such defence shall lie on the person raising such defence ;

(viii) makes to the public a representation in a form that purports to be -

(i) a warranty or guarantee of a product or of any goods or services ; or

(ii) a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result, if such purported warranty or guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect that such warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out ;

(ix) materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or goods or services, have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided, and, for this purpose, a representation as to price shall be deemed to refer to the price at which the product or goods or services has or have been sold by sellers or provided by supplies generally in the relevant market unless it is clearly specified to be the price at which the product has been sold or services have been provided by the person by whom or on whose behalf the representation is made ;

(x) gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person.

x x x x x x x “

8. While going through the definition of 'unfair trade practice', it is crystal clear that the above conduct of the opposite parties will not come under the ambit of Section 2 (1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Shankerlal L. Sachdev Vs. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. II (2012) CPJ 599 (NC) held as follows :-

“As regards the contention of the complainant that opposite parties have resorted to the adoption of the unfair trade practice, the State Commission rejected the same by stating that the complainant had purchased the car with full knowledge about its price, quality and other features as on the date of delivery, therefore, the dealer could not be said to have committed any deficiency in service or having resorted to unfair trade practice because some days later, the manufacturer of the car came out with a scheme for the sale of the car for a limited period of about 10 days effective from 9-9-2009 at a lesser price than the price at which the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question on 3-9-2009, i.e., a week prior to the floating of the said scheme. In our view also, going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale of the car in question having been completed on 3-9-2009 itself after the complainant paid the entire price after arranging the same from the bank, he cannot be heard saying that the opposite party had adopted unfair trade practice because later on the price of the car in question was reduced by more than a lakh of rupees. The argument about registration of the car subsequent to the date of sale with the Motor Transport Authority is also of no avail because many a times cars are delivered on the request of the owner with the temporary registration number or when the owner takes the responsibility of getting the car registered with the Motor Transport Authority.

x x x x x x x x

It appears to us that by filing the present complaint the complainant had attempted to misuse the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora established under the provisions of the Consumer protection Act, 1986. The said statute has been enacted by the Parliament with the sole object of providing a legitimate succor to the bonafide consumers who have been wronged at the hands of the seller/manufacturers of the goods and provider of services.”

9. In view of the above, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. This point is found against the complainant and we are only to dismiss the complaint. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of December 2013.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========