IMPORTANT POINT
Misrepresentation made to complainant as regards year of manufacture of vehicle may invite award of compensation.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant/respondent purchased one Tata Indigo ECS car from the petitioner on 27.06.2014. The vehicle delivered to him had been manufactured in December, 2013. The case of the complainant is that he wanted to buy only a 2014 model car and at the time of sale of the vehicle, it was not disclosed to him that the vehicle being sold and delivered to him, had been manufactured in the year 2013. This was also the case of the complainant/respondent that the vehicle had got rusted from inside and this was discovered when the vehicle met with a minor accident and was taken to the workshop. Being aggrieved from the sale of an old model and a defective car being sold to him, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that at the time of the sale, it had been disclosed to the complainant that the vehicle being sold and delivered to him was a 2013 model. It was further stated in the reply that there was no rusting in the vehicle which was a brand new vehicle at the time it was sold and delivered.

3. The District Forum vide its order dated 13.10.2015, directed the petition to pay a sum of Rs. 6,05,000/- to the complainant alongwith compensation quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 05.04.2016, the State Commission reduced the quantum of compensation from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and the cost of litigation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- but maintained rest of the order passed by the District Forum. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of a revision petition.

5. The only question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner had disclosed to the complainant or not, that the vehicle being sold and delivered to him was a 2013 model. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle, which bears the year of manufacture as 12/2013. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle is registered on the basis of an application form signed by the purchaser and therefore, it is evident that the complainant was fully aware of the fact that the vehicle had been manufactured in December, 2013.

6. The petitioner has not placed on record the copy of the application form which was submitted to the Regional Transport Office for the purpose of registration of the vehicle. In the absence of the application form, it cannot be known as to who had filled up the year of manufacture in the said application form. It is a normal practice for the car dealers to get the vehicle registered and fill up the application form for this purpose. In the present case, there are two documents which indicate that the complainant was not informed that the car had been manufactured in December 2013. In the delivery receipt of the vehicle, there was no indication that the vehicle had been manufactured in December 2013. More importantly, in the insurance policy, which the petitioner itself got issued to the complainant, the year of manufacture of the vehicle was recorded as 2014. The State Commission noted in this regard that the insurance policy bears the seal of the petitioner, meaning thereby that the insurance policy was purchased by the complainant through the petitioner company. The insurance policy bearing 2014 as the year of manufacture of the vehicle, leaves no reasonable doubt that a misrepresentation was made to the complainant as regards the year of manufacture of the vehicle. The complainant therefore, was fully justified in approaching the District Forum by way of a complaint and seeking refund of the price of the vehicle.

7. However, I find merit in the l