STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Telangana

First Appeal No. A/18/2016

(Arisen out of Order Dated 02/11/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/213/2014 of
District Hyderabad)

1. M/s. Dr. Car

NTR Gardens, NTR Marg, Hyderabad 500004. Rep by its
Managing Director Mr. Virenderanath Choudary ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. 1. Mr.Gandham Nagendra Prasad
201, KVM Residency, Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad
500025
2. 2. M/s. N. Lakshmi Devamma
W/o Mr. N. Nagesh, F.No 202, Block XI PrajayNivas,
Phase I, Mohan Nagar, Hyderabad 500001 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER

For the Appellant:

For the Respondent:
Dated : 14 Feb 2018
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No. 18 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.213 OF 2014 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I

HYDERABAD

Between

M/s Dr.Car

NTR Gardens, NTR Marg,

Hyderabad-500 004

Rep. by its Managing Director

-1-
Mr.Virenderanath Choudary

Appellant/opposite party no.2

AND

1. Mr.Gandham Nagendra Prasad

201, KVM Residency, Padma Rao Nagar

Secunderabad-500 025

Respondent/complainant

1. Ms. N.Lakshmi Devamma

W/o N.Nagesh F.No.202

Block XI Prajay Nivas, Phase-I

Mohan Nagar, Hyderabad-500 001

Respondent/opposite party no.1

Counsel for the Appellant Ms Shireen Sethna Baria

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Party in person

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Sri K.Visweswara Rao

QUORUM :

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT

&

SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER

-2-
 WEDNESDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party no.1 aggrieved by the orders of District
Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad, dated 02.11.2015 made in CC No.213 of 2014 wherein it
allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties no.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay an
amount of Rs.1,28,000/- together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3. The case of the complainants, in brief, is that the complainant purchased the Ford
Fiesta Car AP10AG 7245 from the opposite party no.1 through the opposite party no.2 for an
amount of Rs.2,55,000/- and at the time of purchase the meter reading was 52216 Kms but later
when the authorized service station checked the computerized meter reading log it showed that the
vehicle already run 91506 kms that means the meter was tampered. Hence, the complainant filed
the complaint praying to directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- for
tampering the meter.

4. The notice sent to the opposite party no.1 was returned with an endorsement
‘unclaimed’.

5. The opposite party no.2 resisted the case and contended that as per the agreement
entered by the complainant with Dr.Cars it was clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions that
the meter reading of the vehicle is as per Odometer and they do not warranty the same and this
agreement was also signed by both complainant and the opposite parties. Therefore, it is a
concluded contract as such the same cannot be questioned through the complaint. It is not
possible for them to verify the meter reading before the car is put into display. The complainant
having shown interest in purchasing the present car out of about 400 cars on display got the same
inspected with his own mechanic verified the vehicle documents, registration certificate and
negotiated the price directly with the seller and purchased present car having fully satisfied with

-3-
the same. After verifying all the documents, the complainant purchased the vehicle with his full
satisfaction and now alleging the odometer tampering on opposite party no.2 is baseless and also
misleading the forum. Moreover, if the Ford Workshop has given some other meter reading then
the same is between the buyer-opposite partyno.1 and himself and not with the opposite party
no.2. If the complainant have encountered any problem with the purchased car he would have
made complaint against the opposite party no.1 seller who received the payment from the
complainant and also the opposite party no.1 is the best person to answer if the vehicle’s odometer
was tampered. The opposite party no.2 only receives commission of the same for the vehicle
which are sold and therefore the opposite party no.2 just provides the platform to the seller and
buyer for negotiations by themselves and the opposite party no.2 has absolutely no role in the
price negotiations. The opposite party no.2 does also provide additional service such as getting
RTA works, insurance etc., if requested by the buyer or sellers of car at additional charges as
applicable. The opposite party no.2 does not refurbish or any manner service the car for display.
If the Ford service station has given different meter reading then the complainant would have
pleaded the Ford Service Station as one of the party to the complaint as such the complaint is to be
dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. Hence, the opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal
of the complaint.

6. In proof of his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.A1 to
A29 marked while on behalf of the opposite party no.2 the Managing Director has filed his
evidence affidavit and got Ex.B1 marked.

7. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the
complaint bearing CC No.213 of 2014 by orders dated 02.11.2015 granting the reliefs, as stated
in paragraph No.1, supra.

8. Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite party no.3 preferred the appeal
contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The
agreement between the parties was sacrosanct and any claims contrary thereof was forbidden. The
appellant was merely a custodian in the gamut of transaction and was not acting as an agent that
could be fastened with liability of the principal. The District Forum saddled the opposite
partyno.1 with an adverse finding of Unfair Trade Practice in the absence of any such allegation in
the complaint. The amount received by the appellant as commission was only 1.5% of the
transaction whereas the District Forum directed to pay jointly Rs.1,33,000/-. Saddling the
appellant with a finding that it has to pay repairing charges is unjust and perverse and such an
obligation would arise only against the seller. It was not the case of the respondent no .1 that the
sale consideration has been taken by the appellant and that the appellant earned something beyond
its commission. The District Forum ought to have returned the complaint at the threshold for
non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Hence, the appellant prayed to allow the appeal by
setting aside the order of the District Forum.

-4-
9. Counsel for the appellant present and was heard. No representation for respondents’
no.1 and 2. Written arguments of appellant and respondent no.1 are already filed.

10 The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by
the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside,
modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?

11. The case of the complainant is that he purchased Ford Fiesta Car from opposite party
no.1 through opposite party no.2 for an amount of rs.2,55,000/- and at the time of purchasing the
car the odometer reading was shown as the vehicle has ran 52216 kms. After the purchase on
08.10.2013 when the complainant given the said car to the authorized Mody Ford service station
the computerized meter reading log record showed 91506 kms which clearly shows that the
odometer was tampered in order to show that the vehicle run only 52216 kms.

12. On the other hand the case of the appellant/opposite party no.2 is that the complainant
has selected and purchased the said car out of 400 cars on display and also he got inspected the
said car with his mechanic. The complainant after verifying all the documents purchased the said
car with his full satisfaction. It is also the case of the complainant that as per the terms and
conditions the meter readings is as per odometer and the appellant does not provide any guarantee
on that. If the complainant has encountered any problem with the purchased car he would have
made complaint against the opposite party no1 seller who received the payment from the
complainant and also the opposite party no.1 is the best person to answer if her vehicle’s odometer
was tampered. The oppose partyno.2 only receives commission for which the vehicle was sold, it
provides the platform to the seller and buyer for negations by themselves and the opposite party
no.2 has no role in the price negations.

13. Admittedly the complainant approached the opposite party no.2 to purchase the car
and after selecting the car the negations were done over phone and believing the version of the
opposite party no.2 only he purchased the said car. The complainant admittedly visited the
opposite party no.2 as he believed the reputation of the opposite party no.2 and also the
information provided by it about the car purchased the car after paying the negotiated sale
consideration of Rs.2,55,000/- to the opposite party no.2 as evidenced Ex.A9 copy of receipt for
Rs.2,39,000/- dated 06.10.2013. The complainant has no direct contact with the opposite
partyno.1 it is the opposite party no.2 who deals the transaction on behalf of the complainant and
gets its commission from the purchaser and also the original owner of the vehicle. If there is any
tampering of the odometer both the parties are liable for the said meter tampering for the reason
that it is the opposite party no.2 who sold the vehicle to the complainant by inducing him to
purchase the vehicle and also it is the responsibility of the opposite party no.2 to check the vehicle
in all respects by taking support of the expert mechanics and then put the vehicle for sale in their
place. By not doing so, the opposite party no.2 undoubtedly committed deficiency in service by
selling the car to the complainant.

-5-
14. It is to be noted that, the year of manufacture and the usage of the car since the
date of first purchase also determines the value of the car. Hence, the older the car, the less it will
cost, and vice versa. A car that is less than five years old will command a better price than a car of
the same make and model but which is more than 10 years old. A car which has been put to heavy
usage would cost less than a car of the same age but put to lighter usage or used only
occasionally. The longer the age and higher the usage, the higher the depreciation, therefore, the
older the car, the higher will be the depreciation and lower the value. The odometer of the car will
show the number of kilometres logged in by the car since the date of first purchase.
In the present case opposite parties No.1 & 2 projected to the complainant that the car had
covered 52216 Kms and when the vehicle was taken to Mody Ford Workshop on 08.10.2013
after two days of purchase from the date of taking delivery, the computer meter reading log
record shown the mileage as 91506 kms. On the issue of mileage, the vehicle had covered,
opposite party no.2 denied the liability of the meter tampering by it. When opposite party no.2
denied the contention of the complainant, in all fairness, it should have explained as to what was
the actual mileage at the time of sale of car to the complainant. It may be stated here that Ex.A1
indicates the mileage coverage to the extent of 91506 Kms. This invoice was generated by Mody
Ford Workshop in the normal course of its business when the complainant approached it for
service/repair of the vehicle. Thus, we are of the opinion that it is proved beyond doubt that
opposite parties no.1 and 2 in order to get higher price for the car which was purchased by
complainant for Rs.2,55,000/- misrepresented and wrongly projected to the complainant that
the vehicle had covered only 52216 Kms whereas in fact it had covered 91506 Kms. Since vehicle
was registered in the name of opposite party no.1, she by allowing opposite party no.2 to derive
undue benefit, by misrepresentation, was also deficient in rendering service and indulged into
unfair trade practice.

15. From the above discussion, it is established that opposite parties no.1 and 2
misrepresented to the complainant and wrongly projected that the car in question had
travelled/covered 52216 kms whereas actually it had covered 91506 kms., in order to fetch price
more than its worth. In the process, primary deficiency is attributable to opposite party no.1 , who
was main beneficiary. Opposite party no.2 who arranged the deal and got the commission was
also a party to unfair trade practice. Hence, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the
impugned order of the District Forum to interfere with it.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. But in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.

PRESIDENT MEMBER

14.02.2018

-6-
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA]
PRESIDENT

[HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO]

JUDICIAL MEMBER

-7-