IMPORTANT POINT
Supply of old model vehicle in name of new model cannot be allowed.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in FA No. A/11/583, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Forum, Thane dated 07.04.2011, allowing the consumer complaint no. 130/2010 filed by the present respondent was upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 & 2 / complainants went to the showroom of the petitioner/OP No. 1 and booked a ‘Tata Indigo Manza’ vehicle by paying advance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. Thereafter on 27.03.2010, they cancelled the booking of ‘Tata Indica Manza’ and instead, booked another car ‘Fiat Grand Punto Di Emotion Pack’ and paid a further sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to the petitioner/OP-1. The complainant then obtained loan from HDFC Bank which was disbursed to them on 08.05.2010. A total amount of Rs.6,31,549/- was paid by complainant no. 1 to OP 1 on 08.05.2010. The delivery of the car was taken by Mrs. Hirani, wife of complainant no. 1 and mother of complainant no. 2 on 16.05.2010. However, the car was delivered without RTO registration and they were asked to bring the car back on 18.05.2010 for registration. While taking the delivery of the car, the complainants found stains on bumpers of the car and also found that polishing was not done and some other minor problems were also there. They suspected that a used car had been passed on to them, although they had booked top-end model for the car. They were given insurance policy for the car which was dated 04.04.2010 and valid till 03.04.2011. The said policy mentioned the year of manufacture of the car as 2010. However, the OP 1 & 2 had issued a ‘vehicle delivery acknowledgement note’ which mentioned the year of manufacture as 2009. It is stated by the complainants that the said car was complying with Euro-III emissions, whereas the OP could not have sold the car not complying with Euro-IV emissions with effect from 01.04.2010. The complainant then sent legal notice to the OPs and filed consumer complaint in question, demanding that the entire amount of Rs.6,31,549/- should be refunded to them alongwith interest @18% p.a. from Feb. 2010 and further compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- should be given for mental torture and inconvenience and a compensation of Rs.2 lakh be given for negligence alongwith Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.

3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/OP-1 by filing reply before the District Forum in which it was stated that the matter should have been referred for arbitration and also the District Forum Thane had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The OP-1 further mentioned that the car was booked in the name of complainant no. 2, Gaurav Hirani but the loan had been taken in the name of Harikrishan Hirani. The complainant was given a car with special discount of Rs.35,000/-. The car could not be registered in time as the complainant wanted the car to be registered in the name of Gaurav whereas the loan was in the name of Harikrishan Hirani. The registration process could not be completed as the complainants failed to take the car to the office of the RTO. The OP-1, in their written statement, however, have not made any mention of the issue whether 2009-model car was supplied to the complainants.

4. OP-2 Tata Motors and OP 3 & 4, M/s. Fiat India also filed their written version saying that there was no lapse on their part. The District Forum after considering the material produced before them concluded that the OP-1 had sold a car manufactured in the year 2009, by pretending it to have been manufactured in 2010 and thus cheated the complainant. The District Forum directed OP-1 to pay the amount of Rs.6,31,549/- alongwith interest @10% p.a. and take the car back into their possession and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages alongwith Rs.10,00