State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahavir Auto Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd ... vs Smt.K.Bala Saraswathi W/O.Sri ... on 24 August, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.500/2011 against C.C.No.426/2010 District Forum-II, VISAKHAPATNAM. Between 1. Mahavir Auto Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., 39-6-71/3, Mourya Chambers, Venugopalrao Nagar, Near Birla Junction, Visakhapatnam-530 008 Rep. by its Branch Manager. 2. The Mahavir Auto Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., 6-3-907, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory. Appellants/ O.Ps.1 and 2. And 1. Smt.K.Bala Saraswathi W/o.Sri K.V.V.S.N. Murthy, Hindu, aged 47 years, R/o.Narasimhanagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam-16. Respondent/ Complainant 2. Skoda Auto India Private Limited, A-1/1, Five Star Shendra Industrial Area, IQ, Aurangabad District, Aurangabad-431 201. Respondent/ O.P.3 (R2 not a necessary party in this appeal) Counsel for the Appellants : M/s.A.P.Venugopal Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.K.V.Janardhan Rao-R1 QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.426/2010 on the file of District Forum-II, Visakhapatnam, opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant approached first opposite party, branch office and Head office is second opposite party who are authorised dealers of third opposite party i.e. manufacturer of Skoda cars and booked a Skoda car of 2010 model whose cost was Rs.22,43,952/- and the complainant has to further pay road rax, insurance etc., The complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- as initial amount and the took loan from Union Bank of India for the balance amount at Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. The complainant submitted that she paid Rs.25,00,561/- for bringing the car on to road and the first opposite party issued all the necessary papers including delivery acknowledgement note mentioning the manufacturing month and year to the complainant in January, 2010. The complainant submitted that when she approached 1st opposite party for issuing sale certificate for submitting the same to registration authority, 2nd opposite party issued Sales certificate wherein it was mentioned that the month and year of manufacturing of the car delivered to the complainant is December, 2009.
Immediately the complainant approached opposite party No.1 at Visakhapatnam and questioned about the mentioning of year of December, 2009 and submitted that even at the time of purchase, she informed first opposite party only to purchase 2010 model and first opposite party promised that they will provide 2010 model but delivered 2009 model.
The complainant submitted that the opposite parties committed great mistake and caused loss to the complainant to an extent of Rs.4,00,000/- and though they have collected the amount for 2010 model delivered 2009 model. The complainant got issued a registered notice on 20-3-2010 to the opposite parties demanding to execute registration of car delivered to her at their expense by issuing fresh sales certificate or else repay the depreciation amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs with interest for which opposite parties 1 and 2 got issued a letter stating that they are having a problem as the RTA is not accepting the model of 2010 and that the issue should be resolved in some time as form 21 which has been handed over to the complainant comes from RTA server and not from opposite parties. The complainant submits that the opposite parties delivered 2009 model car to her even after receiving cost of 2010 model resulting in loss to a tune of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant for committing deficiency in service in delivering the model of the car together with costs.
Opposite party No.1 filed counter resisting the complaint which was adopted by opposite parties 2 and 3 by filing a memo. They submitted that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e. RTA Visakhapatnam and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite parties submitted that opposite party No.3 is carrying out the assembly operations of all its premium segment passenger cars under the brand name Skoda at its Aurangabad factory and procures many of the parts and components including the body parts from its parent company Skoda Auto as these parts are manufactured abroad. Out of these parts the body part has the specific Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) which is embossed at the parent company of the opposite party in the Czech Republic and not in SAIPL factory at Aurangabad. It is after such incorporation that these parts are assembled at SAIPL factory for complete production of the cars. Upon completion of the said activity, SAIPL issues and certifies a SALE CERTIFICATE in Form 21 in accordance with Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Opposite party further submitted that the month and year of manufacture on VIN actually indicates a date when the body is produced abroad and the month and year of manufacture on Form No.21 actually indicate when the vehicle is completely produced at SAIPL unit of Aurangabad. Obviously the difference in both these dates is attributed to the time gap from the production of the body part abroad, its importation into Aurangabad, India and until the final production of the vehicle at Aurangabad and submitted that import of such car components is permissible under the Indian Laws.
Opposite party submitted that it addressed a letter to the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI for short) on 11-3-2010 seeking clarification regarding the year and month of manufacture of Skoda vehicle vis--vis the year and month of manufacture as per the VIN and ARAI replied vide letter dated 17-3-2010 type approval certificate is issued for compliance to the notified standards as applicable on the date. This also includes VIN as per AIS-065. In this particular case, it is seen that the chasis is manufactured at the overseas manufacturing plant and hence there is considerable time lag between the time of manufacturing of chasis as declared on VIN and the vehicle actually produced in the Indian facility. It is required that the final vehicle complies to all the norms that are applicable as on the date of manufacture of the complete vehicle and declaration to this effect is ensured through form 21. So long as this is ensured, opposite party has no objection for registering these vehicles inspite of the fact that the chasis may have been manufactured earlier.
The opposite parties submitted that the dispute is between the complainant and RTA and submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for failure to add RTA as proper and necessary party and submitted that there is no deficiency in service.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A10 and B1 to B5 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum directed opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- together with costs of Rs.2,500/- within one month from the date of the order. However, the District Forum dismissed the complaint against opposite party No.3.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred this appeal.
It is the complainants case that she purchased a Skoda car from the opposite party No.1 bearing chasis No.TMBBEM3T59A302575 evidenced under Ex.A1 which is the delivery acknowledgement note dated 21-1-2010 and in this delivery note, the month and year of manufacture is written as January, 2010. Ex.A2 is the Sales Certificate form No.21, issued by opposite party No.2 in which the year of manufacture of the said vehicle is stated as December, 2009. It is the complainants case that she had paid in total Rs.25,00,561/- for a 2009 model though she was made to believe that the model is of January, 2010 for which she got issued a legal notice evidenced under Ex.A5 on 20-3-2010 calling upon the opposite parties to get a fresh registration done at their expense or to pay the depreciation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. Ex.A3 is the temporary certificate of registration together with the tax receipt issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Transport department. Ex.A6 is the reply given by opposite party no.1 stating that there is a vehicle identification number and ARAI letter, Ex.B1. dated 11-3-2010.
It is the case of appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 that Ex.B1 states that the month and year of manufacture on VIN actually indicates a date when the body is produced abroad and the month and year of manufacture on form 21 actually indicates when the vehicle is completely produced at their unit at Aurangabad.
There is a time gap from the production of body parts abroad to its importation into Aurangabad and finally the production of vehicle at Aurangabad. Ex.B2 is dated 17-3-2010 and states that as per the VIN, (AIS-065) and Ex.B3 states that the car sold to the complainant is a 2010 manufactured car. Form No.21 issued by the manufacturer states that the year of manufacture is 2010.
Opposite party no.1 also made a representation (Ex.B4 dated 21-4-2010) to RTA on behalf of the complainant which is pending with RTA with respect to incorporating the necessary changes. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that RTA is not made a party before the District Forum or this Commission. The Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) is a research institution of the automotive industry with the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Government of India. ARAI works as per CMV rules and issues certificates to the vehicles. It is the respondent/complainants case that because of the vehicle being manufactured in December, 2009 and not January, 2010, she lost the opportunity of claiming depreciation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
Ex.B2, the ARAI letter dated 17-3-2010 reads as follows:
Type approval certificate is issued for compliance to the notified standards as application on the date. This also includes Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) as per AIS-065. In your particular case, it is seen that the chasis is manufactured at your overseas manufacturing plant and hence, there is a considerable time lag between the date of manufacturing of chasis (as declared on VIN) and the vehicle actually produced in your Indian facility.
It is required that the final vehicle complies to all the norms that are applicable on the date of manufacture of the complete vehicle and declaration to this effect is ensured through form 21. So long as this is ensured, we have no objection for registering these vehicles inspite of fact that the chasis may have been manufactured earlier.
It is needless to say that as a manufacturer, you will have to ensure continued compliance to the notified standards from time to time.
We find force in the contention of the appellants that the said certification issued by ARAI is acceptable in all statutory bodies of the Government and we see no substantial grounds to disbelieve the same. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the letter A in the chasis number TMBBEM3T59A302575, denotes the month of January and the same chasis number is also reflected in form No.21.
Keeping in view the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that there has been no deliberate attempt by the appellants to camouflage the year of manufacture as 2010 when the vehicle was manufactured in the year, 2009. The ARAI letter establishes the same. Therefore we see no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and consequently the complaint is dismissed.
In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.24-8-2012