Judgment:
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the 2nd opposite party/dealer in OP 75/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.41,890/- towards compensation and the 1st opposite party/sub dealer is directed to pay Rs.4,000/-. The complainant has also been permitted to continue the ownership and possession of the vehicle.
2. The case of the complainant is that on 21/2/04 he purchased the Hero Honda Ambition Motor Cycle from the 1st opposite party. Subsequently it was found that the vehicle sold was not a new one. It was the vehicle manufactured in the year 2002 and he sought for the replacement of the vehicle or refund of the amount paid. The 1st opposite party contended that the vehicle was sold at 8 pm on 25/5/04. The vehicle was brought from the 2nd opposite party dealer on 25/2/04 and immediately the same was delivered to the complainants. The vehicle was brought by the road at 8 O clock in the night to the place of 1st opposite party. The complaint was made after 20 days of delivery and registration. It is pointed out that the vehicle was not registered previously.
3. The 2nd opposite party dealer has contended that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party. According to them it is the 1st opposite party who is responsible. The vehicle was manufactured in the year 2002. According to them they sold the vehicle to the 1st opposite party. It is also pointed out that the discount of Rs.4,000/- was given to the 1st opposite party and the same was sold for sum of Rs.41,890/-.
4. The 3rd opposite party manufacturer has contended that the 1st opposite party is not their authorized dealer. It is the 2nd opposite party who is the dealer. It is admitted that the vehicle was manufactured in June 2002.
5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts.P1 to P7 , DWs 1 to 4, Exts.R1 to R7 and Ext C1.
6. As mentioned by the Forum it is seen that Ext.R3 the sale certificate in the name of the 2nd complainant is issued by the 2nd opposite party /dealer. In Ext.R3 the year of manufacture is mentioned as 2004. Ext.R2 temporary registration certificate is also in the name of the 2nd complainant. Hence it is evident that the 2nd opposite party was aware of the entire facts. It is also found that Ext.R4 copy of the general ledger of the 2nd opposite party and a number of vehicles were sold by them to the 1st opposite party. Hence evidently there was a standing arrangement between the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. It was also pointed out that the 1st opposite party has closed down his business. Nothing was produced to show that the 1st opposite party is the dealer of the 3rd opposite party manufacturer. Hence it appears that the 2nd opposite party sold the vehicle manufactured in the year 2002 as if it is manufactured in the year 2004 to the complainant through the 1st opposite party. The involvement of the 2nd opposite party is evident. In the circumstance the finding with respect to the liability of the 2nd opposite party is correct and no interference in this regard is called for.
7. As pointed out that the counsel for the appellant the direction to pay the purchase price of Rs.41,890 to the complainant and also permiting the complainants to continue in ownership and possession of the vehicle is some what unjust. In the circumstance the order of the Forum in this regard is liable to be modified. In the circumstances the direction to pay Rs.41890 is reduced to Rs.32,000/- and the 2nd opposite party would pay Rs.32,000 to the complainants with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint. The rest of the order of the Forum is sustained.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above.