BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 386/2011 Filed on 08/12/2011
Dated: 30..05..2017
Complainant:
Luke. K.G., S/o late George Lukose, Elsa Cottage, CGRA No.26, Chandana Garden, Japrakahs Lane, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. V. Sajan Prasad)
Opposite parties:
1. The Managing Director, Janab P.V. Abdul Wahab, M/s. Indus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Opp: South Gate of Cochin Shipyard, Thevara, Ernakulam.
2. Sreejith, Manager, True Value Showroom, M/s. Indus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Near Old Family Court, Chenthi, Pongummoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.
(Opp. Parties 1 & 2 by Adv. P.K. Aboobacker)
This C.C having been heard on 13..03..2017, the Forum on 30..05..2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:
Complainant’s case is that complainant on 01/08/2009 went to the 2nd opposite party’s showroom at Pongummoodu and a selected vehicle Open Corza bearing Reg.No: KL-01-Y-7790 seen registered in the name of Mr. Mohan Kumar and one of the staff of the 2nd opposite party informed and apprised the complainant that the vehicle does not have any mechanical problem and there were only some scratches here and there. Believing the words of the staff and trusting the name of the Indus Motors, the complainant gave advance of Rs. 5,000/- vide receipt No. 10610. The copy of the receipt is produced. Again on 7/8/2009 the complainant paid Rs. 1,000/- as servicing charge for getting the registration in the name of the complainant as per the demand made by the 2nd opposite party. On the same day complainant paid the balance amount of Rs. 1,24,000/- as a full and final payment and the opposite party made the complainant believe that the registration formalities will be completed within 15 days. On 7/8/2009 itself the complainant took delivery of the said vehicle Opel Corza bearing Reg. No: KL-01-Y-7799 from the 2nd opposite party and at the time of taking delivery also the opposite parties made the complainant to believe that the vehicle has absolutely no mechanical problems. After taking delivery of the vehicle the complainant took the vehicle to the authorized service centre of Opel Corza vehicles at M/s. Deedi Automobiles at Anayara for vehicle check up and the service department of the said M/s. Deedi Automobiles informed the complainant that the power steering rack of the said vehicle is to be replaced immediately and further they informed the complainant that the damage of the power steering rack was already informed to the previous owner of the vehicle Mr. C,. Mohan Kumar on 13/3/2009 itself and the copy of the report dated 13/3/2009 was also given to the complainant. With the said report and vehicle the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and appraised the matter to the 2nd opposite party and he intimated to the complainant that the defect will be cured within a week and the registration also will be done soon. But till last week January 2010 the opposite parties never bothered to rectify the defect or change the registration in the complainant’s name and hence the complainant issued a letter to the opposite parties but the opposite parties neither gave any reply and nor rectified the defects of the vehicle. Again the complainant sent reminders on 19/2/2010, 08/7/2010 & 13/7/2011 but the opposite parties never turned up. Hence on 21/10/2011 the complainant gave notice to the opposite party with all records along with copies of the earlier reports. The copy of the said letters are produced herewith. All these time the opposite parties informed the complainant that they are taking steps to rectify the problems after getting sanction from the higher officials. The complainant received a reply of the 1st opposite party dated 31/10/2011 stating false statements and informed that they are unable to rectify the defects. From 2009 onwards the vehicle is kept idle because of the above mentioned defect. The complainant purchased the vehicle for his personal transport. Due to the said illegal acts of the opposite parties the complainant is now spent more than Rs. 2,00,000/- for which the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable and responsible. Further the authorised service centre estimated Rs. 17,000/- for rectifying the defects. So he approached this Forum for an order directing the opposite parties to cure the damages and defect and replace power steering rack of the vehicle Open Corza bearing Reg. No: KL-01-Y-7799 with a new one and also direct the 2nd opposite party to handover the same to the complainant forthwith and to pass an order directing the opposite parties to register the vehicle Opel Corza bearing Reg. No: KL-01-Y-7799 in the name of the complainant.
2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version contenting that the complainant did not purchase the true value car from these opposite parties. But an Opel Corsa car under NTV (non true was purchased in the name of Mr. Luke George and the said vehicle is not a true value car and the complainant is not having any certificate showing that the said vehicle is a TV (True Valjue) car. The true value car will be a Maruti car manufactured by Maruti and should not meet with any accident earlier. The vehicle selected by the complainant is a 2002 Model Opel Corza car which is not a True Value vehicle as the same was not manufactured by Maruti and it is an old model vehicle. In the pre owned car booking form itself it is clearly mentioned that the vehicle selected by the complainant is a Non True Value Vehicle and in the column of warranty details on car it is clearly shown as no warranty. Moreover in the delivery receipt issued by the complainant it is clearly stated that he will be responsible for its maintenance, accident, road tax, insurance, chalans or any kind of misuse after taking delivery of vehicle. Since the vehicle is under the category of non True Value, opposite parties 1 & 2 are unable to give warranty as those vehicles will be manufactured by other companies and the condition of the vehicle also will be unknown to these opposite parties. The vehicle selected by the complainant is also not a Maruti vehicle. These vehicles came to these opposite parties under exchange scheme to purchase a new Maruti vehicle. The allegations of the complainant is that one of the staff of these opposite parties at Pongummood had appraised the complainant that the vehicle does not have any mechanical problem and there were only some scratches here and there is not true or correct and hence denied. In the case of Non True Value vehicles no dealer can give any assurance or warranty towards the mechanical or other condition of the vehicle. Nobody had compelled the complainant to select a particular vehicle. It is the complainant who had selected a vehicle of make and year of manufacture of his choice. The allegation that these opposite parties had made to believe the complainant that registration formalities will be completed within 15 days is not correct. In the pre owned car booking form itself it is clearly mentioned that the said formalities will take 30 days after documents are submitted to RTO. The complainant had driven the vehicle before taking delivery and he was free to show and have a check up from any private workshop of his choice. It is true that the complainant had booked a pre owned car from these opposite parties as per the conditions in the pre owned car booking form dated 01/8/2009. The complainant had selected an Open Corz bearing Reg. No: KL-01-Y-7799. The further allegation of the complaint that at the time of delivery of the vehicle these opposite parties at Pongummoodu had appraised the complainant that the vehicle does not have any mechanical problem is not true or correct and hence denied. The further allegation that the complainant had taken the vehicle to the authorised service centre of Opel Corza M/s. Deedi Automobiles, Anayara for vehicle check up and the service department of the said workshop had informed the complainant that the power steering rack of the said vehicle is to be replaced immediately and that the said fact was informed to the previous owner of the vehicle on 13/3/2009 itself are all not known to these opposite parties. As stated earlier these opposite parties could not give any warranty or perfection of mechanical side of a vehicle which is a non true value vehicle. It is the duty of the customer to have a check up of the vehicle. It is the duty of customer to have a check up of the vehicle and get satisfied about it’s condition since it was a used car as known to him. In the pre owned car booking form itself it is clearly mentioned that the vehicle has no warranty. Moreover in the delivery receipt it was undertaken by the complainant that he will be responsible for it’s maintenance, accident, road tax insurance or any kind of misuse of the vehicle. The complainant had signed the order booking form on 1/8/2009 after undertaking that he had read and understood the enclosed terms and conditions of booking and sale and accepted the same. So he cannot now turn round and say that these opposite parties had offered warranty to the vehicle. The allegation that these opposite parties have not responded to the letters of the complainant is not correct. These opposite parties had contacted the complainant on receiving every letters and had given proper reply and explanations to the notices sent by him and to the notice dated 21/10/2011. These opposite parties had sent a reply dated 31/10/2011 to the complainant. The further allegation that these opposite parties had caused delay in changing the Registration Certificate is also not true or correct and hence denied. In the pre owned car booking form itself it is clearly mentioned that the said formalities will take 30 days after documents are submitted to RTO. The delay to transfer the ownership is due to the delay on the part of the complainant in producing the documents and after producing the documents the name was transferred. Though the complainant was informed on several occasions to produce the attested copy of election identity card to change the name of ownership of the said vehicle in his name, he delayed the matter by saying one or other reasons. No mental agony, loss, cost or expense incurred by the complaint as claimed by him in the complaint. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint.
3. Issues:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency from the side of the opposite parties’ is proved?
2. If so, what are the reliefs for which the complainant is eligible?
4. Issues 1 & 2: Complainant filed affidavit along with 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. Complainant was examined as PW1. Opposite parties’ failed to file affidavit to substantiate their version. Exts. D1 & D2 were marked through PW1. Perused the documents and pleadings of both sides. Here the complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in delivering him a used vehicle which is having mechanical defect. For establishing the same complainant filed 4 documents of which Ext. P2 series, is relevant in this case, wherein the delivery receipt is marked as Ext. D2 and pre owned car booking form is mentioned as Ext. D1, by the opposite parties. On going through the same it is seen that there is no warranty for the sold vehicle, and it is recorded as a non true value vehicle. It has been signed by the complainant and the Sales Executive of the opposite party. In the terms and conditions it is clearly stated that the “Present car condition and price is acceptable to me, any other job required to be done has been recorded on this Form as mentioned alone”. But no maintenance work is mentioned any where in Ext. D1 except, it is stated that it is a vehicle under non true value category with no warranty. In cross examination complainant was asked whether he had signed Ext. D1 after reading the terms and conditions; he replied as ‘Yes’. So we can safely conclude that complainant is barred from making any further allegations after signing Ext. D1, that too after understanding it clearly as is evident from his deposition. Now comes Ext. D2, which is also a part of Ext. P2 series, the delivery receipt. In that receipt also, there is an undertaking that “ I / we will be responsible for its maintenance, accident, road tax, insurance, challans or any kind of misuse after taking delivery of vehicle. It has been signed by the complainant in the presence of one Mahesh. This was also asked in cross examination, for which complainant admits that he had signed Ext. D2 after understanding the terms and conditions printed on it. In Ext. D2 it is clearly stated that the purchase will be responsible for the maintenance, accident, road tax, insurance, challans or any kind of misuse after taking the delivery of the vehicle. This document is seen signed by the complainant and in his deposition also he admits this and deposes that he had signed the document after reading the terms. So we can safely conclude that the complainant is bound by the documents Exts. D1 & D2, for which he is also a party signing it by understanding it purely. So he is estopped from raised further questions on the same. So the only option left before us is to dismiss the complaint.
In the result, complaint is dismissed, with no order on cost and compensation.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of May, 2017.
Sd/-LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Ad sd/-R. SATHI : MEMBER
C.C.No: 386/2011
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : Luke. K.G
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of advertisement in the Website
P2series : Copies of receipts
P3 : Copy of the reply by the 1st opposite p arty
P4series : Letter dated 19/2/2010 from Luke. K.G., Inspector of Central Excise and Customs to the Managing Director, M/s. Indus Motors Pvt. Ltd., Trivandrum.
III. Opposite parties’ witness : N I L
IV. Opposite parties’ documents:
D1 : Pre Owned Car Booking Form
D2 : Delivery Receipt dated 6/8/2009
Sd/-PRESIDENT
Ad.
