AJAY SHARMA vs Sanya Motors

COMPLAINANT /Petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as ''Petitioner '') purchased TATA Indigo alia Versa Bharat Stage-II car on 8.11.04 from M/s. Sanya Motors, Respondent No.1 herein ( O.P No.1 before the District Forum) authorized dealer of M/s. Tata Motors, Respondent No.2 herein (O.P.No.2 before the District Forum). Respondent No.1 did not hand over the service booklet to the Petitioner at the time of delivery of the car. Petitioner collected the service booklet after a week and found that the entries on the booklet had been tempered with. On examination of the car, Petitioner found some defects in it. Petitioner visited the showroom of the Respondent No.1 on 21.11.04 and 22.11.04 to point out the defects in the car but the Respondent No.1 did not take any notice of it. On 17.12.04, he met with the Vice-President, Shailender Bist of the Respondent No.1 who got the vehicle examined form mechanic, Sanjeev Kumar. Sanjeev Kumar examining the vehicle found that the roof top, back bumper and side door of the car had been re-painted. According to the Petitioner, Shailender Bist offered to pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation which was not accepted by the Petitioner. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking refund of the sale consideration of the car along with interest and compensation for harassment and mental agony.

RESPONDENTS , on being served, entered appearance and filed their separate written statements. Respondent No.1 in its reply took the stands; that the car was not second hand; that the service booklet was handed over to the Petitioner at the time of delivery of the car and no tempering had been done in the booklet; that the car in question along with other cars was received from Tata Motors on 20.09.04 and was sold to the Petitioner on 8.11.04 and repainting, if any, might have been done by the Petitioner himself after causing damage to the car during the period it remained in his custody; that the Petitioner met Shailender Bist but he did not get the car examined from mechanic Sanjeev or offered Rs.2,500/- as compensation. Respondent No.2 took the stand that the relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 was not that of Principal to Agent but on Principal to Principal basis. That since no manufacturing defect in the car had been alleged, the answering respondent was not liable to compensate the Petitioner. District Forum found that the entries in the booklet had been altered by using fluid at three places. There was alteration in column "owner ''s name ". Similarly, the entry had been altered in the column of ''address of purchaser ''. There was also alteration in the entry of ''date of delivery ''. District Forum held that the alterations made by using fluid led to the inference that the name of the owner, address and date of delivery were changed when the vehicle in question was returned by the previous purchaser for some reason or other. That there was no manufacturing defect in the car. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the Petitioner that he had met Shailender Bist, Vice President of the Respondent No.1 and he had got the vehicle examined from Sanjeev Kumar, Mechanic, District Forum concluded that the Respondent No.1 had handed over an accidental car to the Petitioner. On these findings, District Forum allowed the complaint against Respondent No.1 and directed it either to deliver a new car of the same model to the Petitioner with fresh warranty/guarantee or refund the price of the car along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Rs 5000/- were awarded towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation. Complaint against the Respondent No.2 was dismissed as there was no manufacturing defect in the car. Respondent No.1, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.

STATE Commission held that the Petitioner had failed to produce any evidence to show that the car sold to him was not manufactured in the year as was shown to him. He had also failed to prove that the roof top, back bumper and side door of the car had been repainted suggesting that an accidental vehicle was sold to him. There was no manufacturing defect in the car. That since the Petitioner had failed to prove that he had been sold an accidental car or there was any manufacturing defect, the direction issued by the District Forum to deliver new care of the same model with fresh warranty/guarantee or to refund the sale consideration of the car with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization was not sustainable. However, the State Commission held Respondent No.1 guilty of unfair trade practice and playing fraud upon the Petitioner by not disclosing that the vehicle was not new and that it had met with an accident and some of the parts had been repainted. Accordingly, State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed the Respondent No. 1 to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner besides the costs of litigation of Rs.5000/-. Dealer, M/s. Sanya Motors, Respondent No.1 has accepted the order of the State Commission and did not file any appeal. Complainant/Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition seeking setting aside the order of the State Commission and restoring that of the District Forum. Respondent No.1 is not present despite service. We have perused the entire record. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. State Commission as well as District Forum have rightly held that since there was no manufacturing defect, the manufacturer was not liable either to replace the car with a new one or to refund the entire sale consideration of the vehicle. There is also no material on record except the Petitioner ''s own testimony to substantiate that an accidental car had been sold to him. The onus to prove that an accidental car had been sold was on the Petitioner which he has failed to discharge by leading cogent evidence. Petitioner did not examine any expert or any other witness to show that the roof top, back bumper and side door of the car had been repainted. However, the District Forum as well as the State Commission has found that interpolations had been made in the service booklet which amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

STATE Commission has found the Respondent No.1 guilty of making interpolations in the service booklet for which compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to the Petitioner. The relief granted by the State Commission is adequate and since there was no manufacturing defect in the car, a case for replacement of the car or refund of the sale consideration is not made out. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.