IMPORTANT POINT
A new car of the same make as the year of sale would be sold.

ORDER

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 10.01.2014 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’, in F.A. No. 90 of 2013 arising out of the Order dated 27.09.2013 in C.C. No. 91 of 2011 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa, Goa, hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’.

2. The Petitioner herein, Tata Motors Ltd., was the Opposite Party No. 2 before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Manufacturer’.

The Respondent No. 1 herein, Mr. Antonio Paulo Vaz, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

The Respondent No. 2 herein, The Vistar Motor Goa Pvt. Ltd., was the Opposite Party No. 1 before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Dealer’.

3. Vide this Commission’s Order dated 30.04.2019, the Dealer has been proceeded against ex parte.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the Manufacturer and the Complainant.

Perused the material on record.

5. The short point in this case is that the Complainant paid the total consideration price for purchase of a new car in 2011 to the Dealer, after availing financial assistance from a bank; a used car of make 2009 was sold to him in place of a new car of make 2011, he requested for refund of the price paid or replacement with a new car of make 2011; the price was not refunded, replacement was not made. The Complainant did not take delivery of the used car of make 2009, attempted conciliation, sent a legal notice, and, on his grievance not being redressed, filed a Complaint before the District Forum.

6. The District Forum heard the Complainant and the Manufacturer. The Dealer, despite service, remained absent, and was proceeded against ex parte. The District Forum determined ‘deficiency in service’ and fixed joint and several liability on the Manufacturer and the Dealer. The following extracts from the District Forum’s Order dated 27.09.2013 are noteworthy:

11. On perusal of the records and considering the oral arg, it is seen that the Complainant approached OP1 to buy a TATA Xenon Crew Cab AX2 2.2 L DIC, and he was shocked when the O.P. 1 had delivered him old car of 2009 instead of brand new car. The said car had several defects such as the underneath portion of the car was fully corrugated and had scratch marks on the body. The alloy wheels were also corrugated inside and the car also travelled almost 622 km. Also some parts such as music system was not provided although agreed.

12. That the O.P.2 denied the facts and stated that the O.P. made him aware about the old Tata Xenon car of 2009 stock where in a cash discount of Rs.80,000/- along with free music system, mud flap and matting was offered and the complainant after being fully satisfied with the offer and condition of the car made the final decision to purchase the car. But this statement of the O.P. seems to be incorrect. Because if the Complainant had agreed for such offer he would not have refused to take the delivery of the said car is still lying with O.P. and the music system was also not provided.

13. Secondly, the customer when he buys new vehicle he is under the impression that a new vehicle would be defect free. And in the said case it is admitted that the said car is used vehicle, and make of 2009 but the registration was done for the 1st time in the name of the Complainant in 2011. Also the car had travelled almost 622 kms. The O.P. 2 stated that there was pre delivery test. But for this test the car travelled 622 kms?

14. That it is clear from the above facts that the old car is sold to the Complainant instead of new car without giving any information to the Complainant.

15. In L(1) Jose Philip Mamphillil V/s M/s Premier Automobiles Ltd. & Anr. (Supreme Court) (2) Manager, Mehta Mot