By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The first Complainant had approached the first Opposite Party with an intention to purchase a fiat linea classic full option vehicle. On seeing the vehicle demonstrated with all accessories kept within the premises of first Opposite Party and as per the description given by the second Opposite Party and another consultant Sri.Roshan under the first Opposite Party, the Complainant purchased the fiat linea classic full option vehicle for a total price of Rs.9,25,409/- from first Opposite Party. The first Complainant has also exchanged her old vehicles of maruti zen and maruti esteem cars for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards the price of new vehicle. The Opposite Parties offered a discount of Rs.50,000/- which included insurance coverage and a discount for the new vehicle. Thus the first Complainant paid entire amount to the Opposite Parties and they have delivered the vehicle to the Complainant. Before purchase, it was assured that the full option vehicle contained fog lambs, side beading and other accessories. But the vehicle delivered to the Complainant does not contain such accessories and they have delivered only the fiat linea classic and not a full option vehicle. Then the first Complainant requested the first Opposite Party to replace the vehicle with a full option vehicle. But, they have not acted accordingly. The act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in their service. Thus due to this attitude of first Opposite Party, the first Complainant is put to mental agony. The first Complainant thereafter realized that the vehicle delivered to the Complainant in the year 2015 was manufactured in the year 2014. But the said aspect was not disclosed by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties exploited the ignorance of first Complainant in the automotive field and hence exercised unfair trade practice upon the Complainant. Therefore, they are liable to compensate it. Hence this Complainant to direct the first Opposite Party to replace the vehicle delivered to the first Complainant with full option vehicle, to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1 Lakh on account of their unfair trade practice, to get a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for deficiency in their service, to get Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony caused and to grant the cost of this proceedings.
3. The Opposite Parties filed version contenting as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The first Complainant has filed this complaint only on an experimental basis and so, it is liable to be dismissed. They denied that the Complainant approached the first Opposite Party to purchase a fiat linea full option vehicle and she purchased a fiat linea classic full option vehicle on seeing the vehicle demonstrated with all accessories and as per the description given by second Opposite Party and another Consultant one Roshan. They denied that she purchased the fiat linea full option vehicle for Rs.9,26,409/-. They admitted the exchange of her old vehicles as stated in the complaint. They denied that at the time of showing the vehicle, it was assured that the vehicle comprises fog lamps and side beadings. They also denied that the vehicle delivered to the Complainant does not contain such accessories and Opposite Parties delivered only fiat linea classic, instead of delivering a full option vehicle. They denied that by realizing that the Opposite Parties delivered only fiat linea classic, the first Complainant is put to mental agony. They also denied that the first Complainant could not notice the accessories which are not incorporated in the vehicle. The first Complainant along with one Francis came to the first Opposite Party showroom to purchase a fiat linea Classic Model car. Therefore, the second Opposite Party provided a brochure having the description and details of facilities and accessories available in fiat linea classic car. Fiat Linea Classic car comes into two options, one is base model and the other is mid option with limited accessories. Both variants are not having fog lambs and side beading and Fiat Linea Classic does not come in full option. Other variants of Fiat Linea were also shown to the Complainant. But she was very particular about the Classic Model which is having a price of Rs.9,25,409/-. But fiat linea diesel full option is having a price of Rs.12,38,840/-. The first Complainant purchased Fiat Linea Classic vehicle after fully convinced with above aspects. The first Complainant who filed this complaint after a long period of purchase and after using the car till day is not bonafide. If the first Complainant has any difference of opinion, she could have hesitated to take delivery of the vehicle. The first Complainant brought the car during the month of September last week to fix fog lambs stating that due to the sudden climate change in Wayanad it is necessary to fix the same. Though this Opposite Party agreed to do the same for Rs.15,000/-, the first Complainant did not agree for that and went away with a threat that she will take action. This is the reason for filing this litigation. Hence this complaint is to be dismissed.
4. During the pendency of this complaint, the Complainant died. Thereafter, her legal heirs were impleaded and the complaint was amended to incorporate their names. They have also amended the complaint to incorporate the fact that the Opposite Parties delivered the new vehicle in the year 2015, but manufactured in the year 2014.
5. Thereafter, Opposite Parties filed additional versions to deny that the Opposite Parties sold a vehicle of 2014 to the Complainant in the year 2015. The said vehicle was manufactured in the year of 2015 and delivered to the Complainant in the year of 2016. They disclosed this fact to the Complainant and provided a discount of Rs.30,000/-, since, the Complainant preferred this vehicle. Thus, the amended complaint is also not maintainable and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the above pleadings, the points to be considered here are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs.
7. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, OPW2, Ext.A1 to A6 and Ext.B1to B6. Heard, both sides.
8. Point No.1& 2:- For convenience, these points are answered together. The Complainant’s case is that though, she made order to purchase fiat linea full option vehicle, the Opposite Parties cheated her by selling linea classic vehicle which does not contain fog lambs and side beading. According to the first Complainant, only thereafter, she came to know about this cheating and when she contacted the Opposite Parties, they were not ready to replace the vehicle with full option vehicle. So, according to her, there is deficiency in their service. She further alleged that Opposite Parties sold the vehicle to her in the year 2015 which was manufactured in the year 2014. So, she alleged that they exploited the ignorance of the first Complainant and therefore they exercised unfair trade practice also.
9. The Opposite Parties denied these allegations. According to them, the first Complainant along with one Francis approached the first Opposite Party in order to purchase a fiat linea classic model vehicle and after convincing that it does not contain fog lambs and side beadings, they purchased fiat linea classic model vehicle. According to them, after using the car for a long period, they filed this false complaint alleging cheating. According to them, one day the Complainant approached the first Opposite Party with an intention to fit fog lamps. The first Opposite Party was ready to fix the fog lamps only at the cost Rs.15,000/-. So, she went away with a threat that she will take action and this is the reason for filing this false complaint.
10. PW1 is the husband of first Complainant. According to him, he is the person who purchased the car in the name of the first Complainant. According to him, though he wanted to purchase a fiat linea full option vehicle, the first Opposite Party sold fiat linea classic vehicle and thus they cheated them. On the other hand, OPW1, Manager and OPW2, the consultant of the first Opposite Party denied the allegation of the Complainants and according to them, the first Complainant purchased fiat linea classic vehicle and this is a false complaint.
11. So we have to verify whether the first Complainant purchased fiat linea classic vehicle or fiat linea full option vehicle to find out whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of Opposite Parties. Ext.A1 is the order and billing form and Ext.A2 is the retail invoice given by the first Opposite Party to the first Complainant when she purchased the car. But, those documents do not contain the name of the variant. Ext.B1 is the sales feedback form signed by the first Complainant. The first Complainant gave maximum rating to the vehicle which she purchased and expressed very good opinion through this feedback form. Ext.B1 shows that the first Complainant gave her opinion about fiat linea classic mid option vehicle and thus it shows that she purchased fiat linea classic mid option vehicle. Ext.B2 is the statement of acknowledgment. But it does not contain the name of the variant. Ext.B3 and B4 are brochures of the vehicles. Ext.B4 is the brochure of fiat linea classic vehicle. Ext.B4 contains the photo of fiat linea classic which does not contain the fog lamb or side beading. Ext.B6 is the cash receipt voucher for Rs.1,10,000/-. It is a cash receipt voucher given by Opposite Parties to first Complainant when she booked and gave advance towards the price of the vehicle. Ext.B6 contains that the first Complainant booked linea classic model vehicle. All these documents do not contain that the first Complainant purchased fiat linea full option vehicle. Therefore the evidence brought before the Commission would go to show that the first Complainant purchased fiat linea classic vehicle and she never intended to purchase or purchased fiat linea full option vehicle. It cannot be said that the Complainants never seen the name of the variant noted in Ext.B4 and B6. It is evident that the first Complainant used the vehicle for 4 months and only thereafter, she approached the first Opposite Party alleging that they have cheated her by giving fiat linea classic model instead of giving full option vehicle which according to her should have been contained fog lambs and side beadings. Therefore the case of the first Complainant that there is deficiency in service on the Opposite Parties is to be rejected.
12. Further case of Complainant is that the Opposite Parties sold a car to her in the year 2015 which has been manufactured in the year 2014 and so, there is unfair trade practice from them. But documents in this case and the case of the Opposite Parties would go to show that the first Complainant purchased a car in the year 2016 which was manufactured in the year 2015. The case of the Opposite Parties is that they never cheated the Complaint by giving a vehicle in the year 2016 which has been manufactured in the year 2015. This fact can be known to the Complainant from the Registration Certificate. The complaints have not produced the RC to show the year of manufacture or the year of sale. The specific case of Opposite Parties is that after the purchase, the first Complainant approached the first Opposite Party with an intention to fit fog lamp and since the Opposite Party demanded Rs.15,000/-, she went away by threatening that she will take legal action. Thus the evidence before this commission would go to show that this is a false and the case of the Opposite Parties is more probable. So the Complainant failed to prove unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the side of Opposite Parties. So the points are answered against the Complainant.
13. Point No.3: Since Point No.1& 2 is found against the Complainants, they are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 17th day of August 2022.
Date of Filing:-15.10.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainants:-
PW1. Francis. Agriculturist.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Janardhanan. P. KVR Motor Cars,Kozhikode.
OPW2. Ajith. Sales Consultant.
Exhibits for the Complainants:
A1. Order and Billing Form.
A2. Retail Invoice. Dt:22.06.2016.
A3. Authorization Letter. Dt:09.05.2017.
A4. Diary Page showing the price of Linea cars.
A5. Visiting Card of Sales Consultant KVR Motor Cars Private Limited.
A6. Motor Insurance Certificate cum Policy schedule Private Car Package
Policy- Zone B.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
B1. Sales Feed Back Form. Dt:22.06.2016.
B2. Statement of Acknowledgement. Dt:22.06.2016.
B3. Brochure of Fiat Linea Car.
B4. Brochure of Fiat Linea Classic Car.
B5. Copy of Pricelist of cars produced by Opposite Party.
B6. Cash Receipt Voucher. Dt:10.06.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
