AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD Vs. P. GANGADHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to the Act), has been filed by M/s Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint under the Act, against the Order dtd. 1/6/2017, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 224 of 2016. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission has partly allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner herein, and modified the Order dtd. 31/8/2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 55 of 2015, by setting aside the direction given by the District Commission to the Petitioner to replace the vehicle with new on returning the old model vehicle or to return the sale consideration of Rs.6,36,342.00 and directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,88,824.00, being the difference amount of depreciation of the vehicle in question, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase, i.e. 12/5/2014, till payment and further directing to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000.00. In addition thereto, the costs amounting to Rs.2500.00 awarded by the District Commission were retained by the State Commission.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 12/5/2014 the Complainant, Respondent No.1 herein, approached the Petitioner, a Dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra Company vehicles, and purchased a vehicle, namely, Mahindra Quanto C2, for a sale consideration of Rs.6,36,342.00, for which Receipt No. 1415225 dtd. 12/5/2014 and Invoice, showing the year of manufacturing of the vehicle in question as 2014, were issued by the Petitioner and the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on the same date. On 26/6/2014 the Road Transport Authority, Adilabad registered the vehicle and given the registration number as TS-01-UA-0112. Upon receipt of Registration Certificate (RC), the Complainant came to know that the vehicle was an old model and not a new vehicle, as it was manufactured in the month of August 2012 and not May 2014. Upon the matter being taken up with the Petitioner, the Complainant was assured that 2014 model vehicle would be provided to him after contacting with Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3/Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein but all in vain. Alleging that the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner herein, had cheated and misguided the Complainant by delivering an old model vehicle of 2012 instead of 2014, which put him to financial loss and caused mental agony, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Commission, seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to return the sale consideration with 12% interest from the date of purchase or provide a new vehicle and also pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 as compensation and Rs.50,000.00 as costs.

(3.) Upon notice by the District Commission, the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner herein, contested the Complaint and filed their joint Written Version. While admitting that the Complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from the Petitioner on 12/5/2014 by paying the aforesaid sale consideration, it was contended on their behalf that the Complaint was not maintainable in law or on the facts and was liable to be dismissed in limine. While the Complainant was using the vehicle in question for "commercial purposes", in order to enrich himself unjustly he had filed the Complaint by suppressing and misrepresenting the material facts. When the Complainant approached the Petitioner on 12/5/2014 with a desire to purchase Mahindra Quanto C2 vehicle with a "silver" colour for taxi purpose, Opposite Party/Respondent No.2 after verifying the stocks intimated him that the vehicle sought for manufactured in the month of August, 2012 in the said colour was available. With his own accord, the Complainant purchased the said vehicle, which was delivered to him after receiving the sale consideration. None of the Opposite Parties misguided or cheated him, as alleged in the Complaint. After registration of the vehicle in question with the Road Transport Authority on 26/6/2014, the vehicle was brought to the service centre of the Opposite Parties on several occasions, i.e. on 13/8/2014, 10/12/2014, 26/2/2015, 2/5/2015, 6/5/2015 and 30/6/2015 and though the vehicle had run for 51,540 KMs. on none of the occasions any complaint about its being manufactured in the year 2012 was made by the Complainant. It was only afterthought of the Complainant that after 1" years from the date of purchase of the vehicle in question, the Complaint had been filed to grab illegal gains from the Opposite Parties.