ORDER

This Order shall decide both the First Appeals arising out from the impugned Order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in CC No.24 of 2017 whereby the State Commission allowed the complaint.

2. As per report of the Registry, there is delay of 44 days in filing the First Appeal No.710 of 2022 and 86 days in filing FA No.928 of 2022. For the reasons stated in the IA Nos.9093 and 11498 of 2022 filed in both the Appeals respectively, the delay is condoned.

3. For Convenience, the parties in the matter are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before State Commission. ‘Amit Anjani Poddar’ is the ‘Complainant’. While M/s. Ramani Cars(P) Ltd. is referred to as ‘OP-1 & 2’ and ‘Volkswagen India (P) Ltd.’ is referred as ‘OP-3’. ‘Volkswagen Group Sales India (P) Ltd.’ is referred as ‘OP-4’.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that on 03.09.2016 he booked a new Volkswagen Vento Highline Diesel 1.5 AT car for Rs.14,50,000, inclusive of all charges and requested delivery on 08.09.2016. OP-1 informed him that the car was not in stock but could be shipped from OP-2. He paid Rs.50,000 as advance and the balance Rs.14,00,000 was paid on 08.09.2016. The car delivered had already run 273 KM and was previously invoiced on 30.06.2016. The complainant was assured all commitments would be fulfilled within 30 days. But he discovered that the car was a second-hand, which was returned by another customer. Despite assurances, he faced delays and issues in registration and fulfilment of promises. He issued a legal notice and filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking replacement of the car or refund along with compensation and costs.

5. OP-1 & 2, in their written version before the State Commission admitted the booking but denied the inclusion of all charges in the amount. They contended that the complainant was informed about the car’s availability and agreed to take a previously booked car. They vehemently denied selling a second-hand car and asserted that the complainant inspected and accepted the car voluntarily. He did not cooperate with the registration process and provided false information. OP-3, in its Written Version stated they are the manufacturer and do not sell cars directly, asserting non-involvement in the case. OP-4 in reply claimed that there is no privity of contract with the complainant and denied liability for any service deficiencies and asserted that the selling dealer is responsible for all commitments and transactions.

6. The learned State Commission, vide Order dated 29.04.2022 allowed the complaint with the following Order: -

“14. In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to deliver a new Vento Highline Diesel Car with all accessories inclusive of all taxes, cut mat, full mat and Mud flap, Full Teflon coating, car cover, by paying necessary taxes, registration charges, RTO expenses and Road Taxes, with full insurance with zero depredation of bumper to bumper with delivery at Erode

or

To refund a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- towards the cost of the car along with 9% interest from the date of payment till realisation.

The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony along with cost of Rs.5,000/-, Time for payment one month, failing which the amount ordered as compensation shall carry interest @9% p.a., from the date of default, till realisation.”

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the OP4-Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Ltd. filed Appeal No.710 of 2022 praying for:

a) Allow the present Appeal;

b) Set aside the Impugned Order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the State Commission in Consumer Complaint No.24 of 2017;

c) Pass such order and further orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of th