By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties to take back the vehicle sold to the complainant and supply 2016 model vehicle with all parts and machineries of 2016 model and also direct the Opposite Parties to bare all registration and insurance charges of the vehicle, to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as loss sustained to the Complainant with 12% interest and also to pay the cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Opposite Party No.1 approached the Complainant in the month of November 2015 and explained the features of Ciaz Car. The complainant demanded 2016 model vehicle. The Opposite parties informed the Complainant that if the vehicle is delivered in the month of February 2016, the model and parts of the vehicle will be of 2015 only. If delivery is done after February, the Complainant will get 2016 model vehicle. So the Complainant booked the vehicle on 10.02.2016 by paying Rs.3,000/- to the Opposite Parties. The Complainant paid Rs.3,80,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.70,000/-, Rs.38,000/- on 12.02.2016 and 26.02.2016 respectively. The Complainant paid Rs.3,090/- and Rs.690/- on 10.03.2016. More over, on 23.02.2016, the Complainant paid Rs.5,29,085/- through loan to the Opposite Parties. The complainant altogether paid Rs.10,43,865/- towards the value of car. The Opposite Parties delivered the vehicle on 03.03.2016 at the residence of the Complainant and the Complainant registered the vehicle wide No.KL 72A 3366. On examination of the vehicle by the Complainant later, the Complainant found that the engine, glass other machineries are of 2015 model except the chassis. The code of 2015 model vehicle was BF. The code of 2016 model vehicle is BG. The act of Opposite Party is against the contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties cheated the Complainant by selling 2015 model vehicle as if it is 2016 model. The Complainant send lawyer notice to the 1^st Opposite party demanding the Opposite Parties to take back the sold vehicle and supply new model. But Opposite Parties not acted upon as demanded. The act of Opposite Parties are clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from their side.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to the Opposite Parties and the Opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties admitted the purchase of car on 03.03.2016 from the Opposite party. The Opposite Parties not given any promise to the complainant. Every customer books a brand new vehicle only and not of any particular year manufactured one. The Opposite Parties had promised to deliver a 2016 model vehicle to the Complainant and they

had delivered a 2016 model vehicle itself to him as per order booking form. The order booking form is a contract between the complainant and the Opposite Parties and as per contract, the Opposite Parties sold 2016 model vehicle. The chassis number of the vehicle is included in the 2016 model as per communication issued by the manufacturer and the registering authority will give the year of manufacture on the basis of said details. In the RC book of the vehicle, the year of manufacture of the vehicle is shown as 2016. It is submitted by the Opposite Parties that some parts of the engine or glass may be manufactured during 2015 and the manufacturer will use these parts in their stocks while delivering a vehicle from the factory. But that will not affect the performance quality or value of the vehicle as all the parts will be brand new parts. This is the usual problem faced by every manufacturers and dealers especially for the vehicle booked during the starting months of a particular year. Hence there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following

points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of

Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A14. The Commission Reports is marked as Ext.C1 and Ext.C2. The 1^st Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit the 1^st Opposite Party is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 document is marked. The Commissioner is examined as CW1. Ext.A1 is the order booking form dated 06.08.2016, Ext.A2 is the Cash receipt for the payment of Rs.3,000/- at the time of booking, Exts.A3 to A8 are the cash payment receipts, Ext.A9 is the vehicle delivery order, Ext.A10 is the copy of RC, Ext.A11 is the copy of insurance policy, Ext.A12 is the Invoice of the vehicle, Ext.A13 is the copy of lawyer notice and postal receipts and Ext.A14 is the acknowledgments. Ext.C1 is the first commissioner report filed by the Commissioner. Ext.C2 is the second report filed by the same Commissioner. Ext.B1 is the Authorisation letter produced by the Opposite Party. In the first commission report, the Commission reported that the chassis number of the vehicle is manufactured in the year 2016 and some other parts of the vehicle are manufactured in the year 2015. In the second commission report, the Commissioner reported that the chassis number of the vehicle is MA3EXMG. AG ie manufactured in the year 2016. The Glass, Engine, Glass beading, Dickey beading are made of 2015. More over the wind shield Glass, front engine hood beading are made of 2015. On going through the complaint, it is seen that the vehicle is delivered to the Complainant on 03.03.2016. The Opposite Party admitted the same also. On going through these documents, the forum found that the Complainant purchased vehicle in 2016 and most of the parts including the engine of the vehicle are made of 2015. The case of Opposite Parties is that the Opposite Parties delivered 2016 model brand new car to the Complainant and in the RC book of the vehicle, the model shown is 2016. The Opposite Parties stated that the Opposite Parties do not know whether there was any parts with 2015 model in that vehicle. It is proved by Commission reports filed by the Commissioner. The manufacturing company of the vehicle is not made as party in the case. The Complainant purchased the vehicle from the Opposite Parties. The Opposite parties not produced any document to show that the Opposite Parties are permitted to sell the vehicle with parts manufactured in the previous year during the initial months of the next year. In the absence of such evidence, when a prudent customer question it, the Forum have to look in to the matter. The Forum is of the opinion that the value of the vehicle is based on the model of the vehicle and its parts. If parts are made in the previous year, it will diminish the value of the vehicle. The depreciation value of the vehicle will be 10% per year. So the Complainant is also entitled to get a deduction of 10% in the value of the vehicle from the Opposite Parties. Since the sale is made in the initial months of 2016 and no manufacturing defect is alleged, replacement of vehicle cannot be ordered as per the prayer of the Complainant. In the opinion of the Forum, the Complainant is entitled only to get 10% deduction in the value of the vehicle. As per Ext.A9 document, the Invoice value of the vehicle is Rs.9,56,127/-. The Complainant is entitled to get Rs.95,612/- being the 10% deduction in the value of the vehicle. The Forum found that selling vehicle in the year 2016 with parts made of 2015 is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.95,612/- (Rupees Ninety Five thousand Six hundred and Twelve) only being the 10% deduction in the value of the vehicle to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand ) only as cost and compensation to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the above amounts to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 4^th day of August 2017.

Date of Filing:14.07.2016.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witnesses for the complainant:

PW1. Eldo K.M Complainant.

CW1. Jineesh Thomas. Mechanic, KSRTC, Mananthavady.

Witness for the Opposite Parties :

OPW1. Prabhilash. Area Sales Manager, Indus Motors,

Mananthavady.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Order Booking form.

A2. Cash Receipt. dt:10.02.2016.

A3. Cash Receipt. dt:12.02.2016.

A4. Cash Receipt. dt:26.02.2016.

A5. Cash Receipt. dt:26.02.2016.

A6. Cash Receipt. dt:26.02.2016.

A7. Cash Receipt. dt:10.03.2016.

A8. Cash Receipt. dt:10.03.2016.

A9. Copy of Vehicle Delivery order. dt:23.02.2016.

A10. Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A11. Copy of Certificate Cum Policy Schedule.

A12. Tax/ Vehicle Invoice. dt:19.02.2016.

A13. Copy of Lawyer notice and postal Receipts. dt:30.04.2016.

A14.(2 Nos) Acknowledgment.

C1 series (8 Nos) First Commission Report.

C2 Commission Report.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Authorisation Letter. dt:17.07.2017.