DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Wednesday the 25th day of January, 2023
C.C. 193/2017
Complainant
Avinash,
S/o Prabhakaran,
Karunayil House,
Kadalundi P.O,
Kozhikode – 673302.
(By Adv. Sri. Swapna. C. P & Sreena. P. B)
Opposite Parties
- Top Motors,
23/63 A1, AKK Building,
Kannanchery,
Kallai P.O,
- TVS Motor Company Ltd.,
Ambadi Tower,
-
-
-
Edappally P.O,
Cochin - 682024.
(OP1 by Adv. Sri. Shajir. C)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant booked a TVS Apache 200 bike from the first opposite party dealer. Rs. 1,08,000/- was paid to the first opposite party towards the price. On enquiry, the first opposite party informed the complainant that the vehicle was latest model. But on verification of the RC book, it was revealed that the motorcycle was 2016 model. When he contacted the opposite parties, their response was not good. He was cheated by them. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses.
3. The first opposite party resisted the complaint by filing written version. The second opposite party was set ex-parte.
4. According to the first opposite party, the vehicle sold to the complainant is a new vehicle of latest model. Just because the order was placed on 09/01/2017, there was no guarantee or assurance given by the first opposite party that the vehicle sold to the complainant was manufactured in the year 2017. It is true that the vehicle in question was manufactured in the month of November 2016. The manufacturer delivered the vehicle to the first opposite party only on 01/12/2016 and the month of manufacture was recorded in the Temporary Registration Certificate. The vehicle is free from any defects.
5. Purchase of a vehicle in the first month of new year from a dealer will always be vehicle manufactured in the last quarter of the previous year. A vehicle manufactured in the month of January of any year will be released from the company and delivered to the dealer only after a few weeks.
6. The allegation that the complainant was told that the vehicle was of new model is false and hence denied. The allegation that the first opposite party misbehaved to the complainant is false and hence denied. In fact, it was the complainant who misbehaved to the first opposite party baselessly alleging that the vehicle given to him was an old model. There was no cheating, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party. No mental strain or agony was caused to the complainant on account of the transaction. The claim for compensation is not allowable. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
8. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 and A4(a) on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined on the side of the first opposite party.
9. We heard both sides. Brief argument note was filed by the complainant.
10. Point No 1: The complainant has approached this Commission claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The specific allegation is that a Motorcycle manufactured in the year 2016 was sold to him in the year 2017, contrary to the promise that a latest model vehicle would be delivered.
11. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the document dated 24/01/2017 showing transfer of the amount to the account of the first opposite party, Ext A2 is the receipt dated 24/01/2017, Ext A3 is the vehicle invoice dated 25/01/2017, Ext A4 is the copy of the certificate of registration and Ext A4(a) is the copy of the tax token. The HR Manager of the first opposite party was examined as RW1, who has filed proof affidavit supporting and reiterating the contentions in the written version. RW1 was not cross examined by the complainant.
12. There are some admitted facts in this case. The second opposite party is the manufacturer and the first opposite party is the authorised dealer of TVS Apache 200 Motorcycle. The complainant booked TVS Apache 200 on 09/01/2017 by making payment of advance. The vehicle was delivered on 25/01/2017. The vehicle delivered was manufactured in November 2016. There is no serious dispute on the above aspect.
13. The grievance of the complainant is that the latest model motorcycle was not delivered to him. It has come out in evidence that the vehicle sold to the complainant was of latest model. But admittedly the year of manufacture was 2016. So the real grievance of the complainant appears to be that a vehicle manufactured in 2016 was delivered to him in January 2017. The case of the complainant is that the first opposite party had told him that a vehicle manufactured in the year 2017 would be delivered to him. But this is stoutly denied by the 1st opposite party. As we have already stated, the vehicle in question was manufactured in November 2016 and the delivery was made on 25/01/2017. There is absolutely nothing in evidence to show that the first opposite party had given an assurance that the vehicle manufactured in the year 2017 would be delivered to him. Naturally, for a purchase of the vehicle in the first month of new year from a dealer, the delivery will be from the vehicle manufactured in the last quarter of the previous year. A vehicle manufactured in the month of January will reach the dealer from the company only after a few weeks. So it was not probable that the dealer offered to deliver 2017 make vehicle for a booking made on 09/01/2017.
14. In this context, it is pertinent to note that PW1 has admitted that he had seen the vehicle to be delivered to him in the showroom. Equally, it is important to note that the complainant had no such grievance at the time of delivery of the vehicle. He did not raise any protest. The vehicle had Temporary registration certificate and also insurance certificate and the year of manufacture will be recorded in those documents. If the vehicle of 2016 make was delivered to him contrary to the promise, naturally the complainant would have objected on seeing the year of manufacture in those documents. The case of the complainant that he came to know about the year of manufacture only on receipt of Ext A4 Registration Certificate cannot be believed without a pinch of salt.
15. The definite case of RW1 is that they had not given any such assurance to the complainant and the vehicle sold to the complainant was of latest model which was manufactured in the last quarter of the year 2016. RW1 was not cross-examined by the complainant and his evidence in this regard stands unchallenged. The complainant could not show that there was an assurance given by the first opposite party to deliver a vehicle manufactured in the year 2017. That being so, no unfair trade practice can be attributed against the opposite parties.
16. The complainant has got a grievance that when he approached the first opposite party, they misbehaved towards him. But this allegation is not supported by any satisfactory evidence.
17. To sum up, we find that there is no proof of any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and consequently the complaint must fail.
18. Point No.2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not eligible to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 25th day of January, 2023.
Date of Filing: 11/05/2017.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Document dated 24/01/2017.
Ext. A2 – Receipt dated 24/01/2017.
Ext. A3 – Vehicle invoice – 25/01/2017.
Ext. A4 – Copy of the certificate of registration.
Ext. A4 (a) – Copy of the tax token.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Avinash (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – Zakaria. A. V
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/- Assistant Registrar
