IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No.210 of 2019 and F.A.No.54 of 2021 [Against the order dated 16.07.2019, passed in C.C.No.117 of

2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore].

Thursday, the 4^th day of September, 2025 F.A.NO. 210 OF 2019 M/s. Jai Krishna Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Manager (Sales), 8/62 D, Mettupalayam Road, GN Mills Post, Coimbatore – 641 029. ... Appellant/2^nd opposite party - Vs –

1. S.Ramakrishnan, S/o Late R.Shankar Iyer, 19-A, Shiva Nagar, Edayarpalayam Post, Coimbatore – 641 025. … 1^st Respondent/Complainant

2. Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing (Sales), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. … 2nd Respondent/1st opposite party Counsel for Appellant: M/s. O.S.Karthikeyan Counsel for 1st Respondent: M/s. R.Aranganathan.

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent: M/s. Krishna Srinivasan.

F.A.NO. 54 OF 2021

1. Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing (Sales), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. … Appellant/1^st opposite party - Vs –

1. S.Ramakrishnan, S/o Late R.Shankar Iyer, 19-A, Shiva Nagar, Edayarpalayam Post, Coimbatore – 641 025. … 1st Respondent/Complainant

2. M/s. Jai Krishna Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Manager (Sales), 8/62 D, Mettupalayam Road, GN Mills Post, Coimbatore – 641 029. ... 2nd Respondent/2nd opposite party Counsel for Appellant: M/s. S.Ramasubramanian Counsel for 1st Respondent: Notice Served.

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent: M/s. O.S.Karthikeyan..

Both the First Appeals came up for final hearing on

04.09.2025, and on hearing the arguments and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Common Order in the Open Court:-

COMMON ORDER

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT (Open Court)

F.A.No.210 of 2019 has been filed by the 2nd opposite party as against the order dated 16.07.2019, passed in C.C.No.117 of 2015 passed by the District Forum, Coimbatore, allowing the complaint filed by the 1^st Respondent herein in part. As against the same order, F.A.No.54 of 2021 has been filed by the 1^st opposite party.

For the sake of convenience the parties in the course of this order will be referred as per their respective rankings before the District Commission.

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that, he is a senior citizen and practising Lawyer at Coimbatore, since last 4 decades. He has been using Maruti brand cars for his own use since last 30 years and more. The 1^st opposite party introduced the ALTO 800 in the month of January 2013 and released a host of media advertisements and started canvassing with customers to buy this particular vehicle since it is considered to be fuel efficient and a good car for own use by the complainant. The complainant has decided to go for the new ALTO 800 in exchange for his three year old ALTO LXi model already owned by him. He already own ALTO LXi. He decided to go for ALTO 800 by exchanging his three year old ALTO LXi. The complainant had booked ALTO 800 car with the 2nd opposite party who is a dealer, having network of service on 12.02.2013 and paid advance. The 2^nd opposite party issued a Proforma invoice, indicating the price of the vehicle and very specifically stated that the vehicle has got two variants i.e. (i) The engine manufactured in the year 2012 for which a sum of Rs.30,000/- is allowed as bonus. (ii) The engine manufactured in the year 2013 for which a sum of Rs.15000/- is allowed as bonus. The complainant fully believing the deliberations confirmed his booking on a condition that the vehicle fitted with the engine manufactured in the year 2013 should be delivered to him. The 2nd opposite party agreed for the same. On 13.03.2013 the vehicle was delivered after due registration. The vehicle was registered as TN 38 BS 6330. Full payment of Rs.2,23,000/- was made on 12.02.2013 after availing the concession of Rs.15,000/-. The 2nd opposite p