RAMESH CHANDER VARMA vs SAIRAM TATA MOTOTS

Petitioner/complainant being aggrieved of concurrent finding of the District Forum, Durg and the State Commission, Chhattishgarh resulting in dismissal of his consumer complaint No.CC/14/95 has preferred this revision petition.

Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition is that on 31 st December, 2013 the complainant/petitioner purchased one car make Indigo from the opposite party. According to the complainant, as per the sticker pasted on the car, it was tested and found OK by the manufacturer company on 1.11.2013. However, at the time of sale the car had already run 35 kms. and the warning red light of hand brake system was on. When the complainant asked for the reason as to why warning red light was on, the dealer assured him that it was immaterial. It is further the case of the complainant that although he was assured that the car will give mileage of 25 kms. per liter, its mileage was much less i.e. 18 kms. per liter. The complainant thus, contacted the opposite party on toll free number on 19.1.2014 and he was told that on 17.12.2013 the necessary rectifications were done to remove the defects in the car and to set right the average consumption. The complainant, however, on contacting some other mechanic came to know that warning red light of the brake system is a sign of failure of the brake system. The case of the complainant is that at the time of sale the opposite party dealer concealed from him that certain defects found in the car were removed on 17 th December, 2013. Not only this, the hand brake system was rectified on 30.1.2014. On the aforesaid allegations, the complainant has claimed that the opposite party sold him defective and repaired car. Therefore, he is entitled to replacement of car also the compensation.

The respondent/opposite party in its written statement took the plea that before the delivery of car to the customer it is obligation of the dealer to conduct pre-delivery inspection and rectify minor faults. Thus, on 17.12.2013, pre-delivery inspection was done and it was found that fuel meter was not functioning properly. It was accordingly replaced. As regards the mileage of 35 kms. it was pleaded that the vehicle before sale, for the purpose of pre-delivery inspection, was put to test drive. It is alleged that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in perfect state after pre-delivery inspection and that in view of the on-line registration done, the date of sale in the registration certificate is shown as 16.1.2014. Otherwise, the vehicle was sold on 31.12.2013. On the same day it was got insured by the complainant.

Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence did not find anything wrong in pre-delivery inspection done by the opposite party to ensure that new car in perfect condition is delivered to the complainant. District Forum also came to the conclusion that the car was sold on 31.12.2013 and the discrepancy regarding the date of sale in registration certification is due to the on-line system of RTO according to which the registration of the car is shown on the date on which the certificate is issued. The District Forum, thus, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal.

The State Commission, Chhattishgarh vide impugned order concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved of the dismissal of appeal, the complainant has preferred the instant revision petition.

The complainant has assailed the impugned order firstly on the ground that both the Fora below have failed to appreciate that the complainant has been sold a repaired car as new. In support of this contention, complainant has contended that the car had stickier of the company showing that it was tested and found OK on 1.11.2013. Therefore, there was no occasion for pre-delivery inspection on 17.12.2013. Thus, it is clear that the said car got damaged after 1.11.2013 and on 17.12.2013 some repair was done which fact was concealed from the complainant. We do not find merit in this contention. The manufacturer before dispatching the car for sale to the dealer is supposed to conduct inspection test in order to ensure that the car is in perfect condition. Thereafter, the dealer also has to do pre-inspection of the vehicle before sale to ensure that the car is sold to the customer in perfect condition in order to avoid any unnecessary trouble to the customer. Thus, merely because on 17.12.2013 pre-inspection test was done and consequent minor repairs were undertaken, it cannot be said that the complainant had been sold an old damaged/repaired car.

Secondly, it is contended that the complainant was sold a second hand car which is apparent from the fact that as per the dealer invoice the car was sold on 31.12.2013 whereas the registration has been done on 16.1.2014 and in the registration certificate date of sale of car is shown as 16.1.2014. This fact has been thoroughly explained by the opposite party by stating that the aforesaid discrepancy has occurred because of on-line system of registration of car with RTO. The District Forum in its order has taken a view that the car was sold and delivered to the complainant on 31 st December, 2013 and substantiated the same by the fact that it was got insured by the complainant on 31.12.2013. Therefore, there is no doubt in our mind that new car was actually sold to the complainant on 31 st December, 2013. There is nothing on record to suggest that the car suffered from any defect. Therefore, under the circumstances we find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.