ORDER

(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):

This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2009 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, in consumer complaint No. 162 of 2008.   By the impugned order, the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant-          Sh. Rajeev Chandra had made contact with the opposite party No. 2-M/s Rohan Motors Ltd., New Delhi to purchase a vehicle imported through opposite party No. 1-M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd., New Delhi.  The opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant that the cost of the vehicle is         Rs. 13,80,000/- and thereafter on 07.08.2007 the complainant filled an order form and booked the vehicle and deposited Rs. 50,000/- in cash at the time of booking. The opposite parties gave undertaking to the complainant that as soon as the vehicle is available, the complainant shall be informed, who shall take the delivery of the vehicle after payment of balance amount.  The opposite parties have also informed the complainant that the said vehicle is valid for registration in any A.R.T.O. office in India under the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.  The complainant had specifically informed the opposite party No. 2 that he belongs to Roorkee, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand and he wants to register the vehicle in A.R.T.O. office, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand.  The complainant booked the vehicle on the assurance given by the opposite parties. The opposite parties sent an invoice to the complainant on 11.09.2007, thereafter the complainant had paid balance amount, i.e. Rs. 13,46,250.85ps. to the opposite party No. 2 towards the cost of the vehicle as well as tax, registration and insurance and the opposite parties gave delivery of the vehicle with temporary registration dated 21.09.2007 with registration    No. D.L.-10TMP-U-8397, which was valid from 21.09.2007 to 20.10.2007.   The complainant brought the vehicle from Delhi to Roorkee, District Haridwar and contacted A.R.T.O. office, Haridwar for permanent registration of the vehicle and completed all the formalities.  The opposite parties had issued a Form No. 17 in which it was also mentioned that it is valid for whole of India.  The A.R.T.O., Haridwar refused for permanent registration of the vehicle because the said vehicle was not in the Approved List of A.R.T.O. office.  The complainant had already informed the opposite parties that the said vehicle will be registered in Uttarakhand.  Due to non-registration of the said vehicle, the complainant could not use the same and a period of 105 days’ for warranty, free services and insurance had lapsed.  Later on the said vehicle was registered in the R.T.O. office, Haridwar with difficulty and the said office issued a Registration No. UK08-K-9001 on 07.01.2008. The complainant contacted Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and also sent so many letters to this office, who had issued letter dated 11.12.2007 to all the R.T.O. offices regarding the registration of such type of vehicle. During this period, the opposite parties did not cooperate with the complainant.  The opposite parties had already in knowledge that the said vehicle cannot be registered in the State of Uttarakhand, because it is not in the approved list of Uttarakhand.  Even then to defraud the complainant, the opposite parties had sold the said vehicle to the complainant. The complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 is a company, which imports the vehicle and the opposite party No. 2 is an agency, who sold the same to the complainant. By defrauding the complainant by the opposite parties, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which also comes under unfair trade practice.  The complainant is entitled to get extension of warranty, free services and extension of insurance or premium of 105 days and damages for which the opposite parties are responsible to pay the same.  The complainant had purchased the vehicle from the opposite parties in Roorkee, District Haridwar for registration in the State of Uttarakhand.  There is a local dealer of opposite party No. 1 at Roorkee and Haridwar and due to problems for registration in the office of A.R.T.O., Haridwar, the cause of action arose at District Haridwar, which is in the jurisdiction of District Haridwar.  Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.  

3.      The opposite party No. 1 has filed the preliminary objections and written statement before the District Forum and stated that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the consumer complaint, as the complainant admitted to have purchased the vehicle in question from opposite party No. 2 in New Delhi and the registered office of answering opposite party is also in New Delhi.  The complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the answering opposite party as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant neither bought the vehicle under the contract for sale from the answering opposite party nor hired any service for consideration.  The answering opposite party was not privy to the transaction alleged to have had happened between the complainant and the opposite party No. 1.  The consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 1 is not maintainable and is bad for non-joinder of parties. The complainant has failed to implead RTO, Haridwar, who is necessary party to the consumer complaint in lieu of allegations made. On this point alone the consumer complaint of complainant is liable to be dismissed.  The present consumer complaint is without cause of action against the answering opposite party. The complainant has no case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(1)(o) and (r) of the Act.   The compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act can be awarded to the complainant for any loss or injury suffered by the complainant due to the negligence of the answering opposite party.  The complainant has failed to place any material on record in order to substantiate his claim for compensation against answering opposite party.  The complainant is not a consumer of the answering opposite party in so far as transaction of sale is concerned.  The opposite party No. 1 was not party to the said sale transaction.   It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite party No. 2 sold the vehicle in question to the complainant under a contract of sale of goods entered into between the complainant and the opposite party No. 2.  Since, the answering opposite party was not privy to the said sale transaction, therefore, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No. 1. The complainant has no locus to raise any claim against the answering opposite party.  The complainant never paid any amount to the answering opposite party in regard to the sale of vehicle in question is concerned.  Moreover it is pertinent to submit that the relationship between the answering opposite party and the opposite party No. 2 is that of principal to principal basis and governed by dealership agreement.  The answering opposite party did not supply any document to complainant relating to registration of vehicle in question. However, without prejudice it is pertinent to note that the vehicle in question was registered by R.T.O., Haridwar and refutes previous allegations.  It is emphatically denied that the answering opposite party was responsible for delay in registration of the vehicle in question.  It is emphatically denied that the answering opposite party has committed fraud or mislead the complainant in any manner.  In so far registration of vehicle is concerned, the answering opposite party is no way responsible, as this opposite party No. 1 does not sell or earmark vehicles to individuals.  However, without prejudice it is submitted that the vehicles manufactured by answering opposite party can be registered anywhere in India after fulfilling all the required formalities as per Motor Vehicles Act, which are duly approved by Government of India for all practical purposes.  The complainant neither bought the vehicle in question under the contract for sale from the answering opposite party nor hired any service for consideration. The complainant has no case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the opposite party No. 1. The complainant has failed to set out any specific allegation against the answering opposite party.  The answering opposite party is not liable to extend warranty, free services, extension of insurance or premium of 105 days and damages to the complainant, as alleged.  The alleged transaction exclusively took place between the complainant and the opposite party No. 2 and the answering opposite party was not party to the said transaction, therefore, claiming any relief against the alleged transaction against the answering opposite party does not arise.  The complainant booked and purchased the vehicle in question from opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 1 was not privy to said transaction.  Therefore, the question does not arise of answering opposite party giving assurances to complainant. The complainant is making false and frivolous allegations without placing material on record.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the answering opposite party under the Act as prayed for. 

4.      The opposite party No. 2-M/s Rohan Motors Limited has not filed any written statement before the District Forum, therefore, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party No. 2.

5.      The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 20.01.2009.  Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

6.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material placed on record.

7.       There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellant-complainant had booked a Grand Vitara car and deposited Rs. 50,000/- as booking amount with the opposite party No. 2-respondent No. 2.  There is also no dispute that on the basis of invoice dated 11.09.2007, the complainant had paid balance amount of Rs. 13,46,250.85ps to the respondent No. 2 towards cost of vehicle as well as tax, registration and insurance and got delivery of the vehicle with temporary registration number. The only dispute is with the fact that whether the respondents gave any assurance or undertaking to the appellant that this vehicle can be registered in the State of Uttarakhand and whether the respondents defraud the appellant and there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, which comes under unfair trade practice. 

8.       Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had purchased a Grand Vitara car from respondents and before doing so he had mentioned to the respondents that the same is to be used in the State of Uttarakhand and the same is to be got registered therein.  The respondents assured the appellant that the vehicle will be duly registered in the R.T.O. of Uttarakhand, as the same is duly certified with them.  After the purchase of the vehicle, when the appellant moved an application before A.R.T.O., Haridwar for the registration of the vehicle, the A.R.T.O., Haridwar rejected the application stating that the said vehicle is not in the approved list. Learned counsel argued that when the appellant contacted the respondents, they were not ready to help the appellant and after running from the pillar to the post, the appellant after deposit of all the necessary documents, got his vehicle registered.  In all this activity 105 days’ were off and for all these 105 days the vehicle was stalled in the garage as the same could not run on roads without registration.  The District Forum has passed the impugned order just against the law. The District Forum miserably failed to appreciate the evidence of the appellant and had wrongly laid the grounds rejecting the consumer complaint of the complainant-appellant.  The District Forum had failed to appreciate that the respondents used unfair trade practice and also failed to appreciate that the respondents gave an assurance to the appellant that the vehicle will be duly registered in Uttarakhand. The District Forum has wrongly interpreted that the consumer complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, i.e. A.R.T.O., Haridwar and also wrongly interpreted that the respondent No. 1 has no responsibility regarding the vehicle.  The District Forum has also wrongly interpreted that since the vehicle had been purchased at New Delhi, hence, the Forum has no jurisdiction to hear the case. 

9.       On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the vehicle in question was booked and delivered at New Delhi, so the District Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. 

10.     From the perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that the appellant had booked a Grand Vitara car on 07.08.2007 vide receipt No. RMLNDC\0057\06-07 at M/s Rohan Motors Ltd.-respondent No. 2 an authorized Maruti Dealer at New Delhi (paper No. 15).  Order booking form (paper No. 16) on record indicates that the appellant has filled this booking form at M/s Rohan Motors Ltd., Mathura Road, New Delhi on 07.08.2007.  Column No. 5 of this booking form is undertaking by the customer, i.e, appellant and the dealer, which indicates that “this agreement of sale of the above mentioned vehicle is between both of us and that Maruti Udyog Limited is not a party to this booking and is not liable in any manner.”  Receipt of payment of Rs. 13,57,895/- dated 24.09.2007 (paper No. 17) which was paid by the appellant to M/s Rohan Motors Ltd, New Delhi.  Paper No. 18 is tax invoice.  Paper No. 19 is Temporary Certificate of Registration issued by issuing authority Motor Licencing Officer, Delhi dated 21.09.2007.  Paper No. 20 is a letter dated 11.12.2007 of Additional Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand to all the Registering Authority, Uttarakhand regarding imported vehicle Grant Vitara, Sports Utility Vehicle for approval and registration in the State of Uttarakhand and paper No. 21 is a letter of A.R.T.O., Haridwar dated 06.05.2008 regarding delay in registration of vehicle No. UK08-K-9001 Suzuki Grand Vitara. 

11.     The appellant is not a consumer of respondent No. 1, as the appellant has not purchased the vehicle in question from the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, in absence of any privity of contract between the appellant and respondent No. 1, the appellant is not a consumer of the respondent No. 1.  The appellant has not made A.R.T.O., Haridwar as necessary party in the consumer complaint, therefore, the consumer complaint is bad for non-joinder of A.R.T.O., Haridwar as necessary party.  In case, if A.R.T.O., Haridwar shall be made necessary party then A.R.T.O., Haridwar could explain the actual cause of delay in registration of the vehicle in question.  The respondent No. 2- M/s Rohan Motors Ltd. had sold the vehicle in question to the appellant at New Delhi.  The vehicle was booked at New Delhi and the same was delivered in New Delhi.  No transaction took place, either at Roorkee or Haridwar.  There is no branch of respondent No. 1 at Roorkee and Haridwar and there is no dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd. at Roorkee and Haridwar, therefore, no transaction was made between the appellant and respondent No. 1.  All the proceedings regarding booking, purchase and delivery took place at New Delhi, therefore, the District Forum, Haridwar had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the consumer complaint of the appellant.  The respondent No. 1 is not the manufacturer of the vehicle in question.  There is no evidence on record to show that any assurance was given by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to the appellant regarding the registration of the vehicle at Uttarakhand.  The Haridwar District Forum has observed in the impugned order and judgment that the complainant had never produced any documents before the District Forum at the time of filing the consumer complaint, which could show that there was any assurance from the side of opposite parties-respondents that the vehicle in question is approved for registration of the vehicle in the State of Uttarakhand.  There is also mentioned in the order and judgment of District Forum that the delay in registration of the vehicle in question was also due to want of desired number by the appellant from A.R.T.O., Haridwar.  There is no evidence on record to show that there was any assurance in writing from the respondents’ side that the vehicle in question shall be registered in Haridwar and this vehicle is approved for registration in the State of Uttarakhand.  It was the duty of the appellant to think that such type of vehicle is not available in the State of Uttarakhand then how such vehicle purchased from the other state can be registered in the State of Uttarakhand.  Free services of the vehicle in question is not possible at District Haridwar.  Such type of vehicles are not available for sale or purchase in the showroom of Maruti Udyog Ltd. in the State of Uttarakhand.  Therefore, in these conditions this vehicle was not approved for registration in the State of Uttarakhand.  But after some time this vehicle in question was registered in the office of A.R.T.O., Haridwar after some efforts done by the appellant.   As there was no assurance from the side of respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 is not the party of the contract, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties-respondents and more over the transaction took place at New Delhi and no transaction from booking up to delivery of the vehicle was done at Haridwar or Roorkee, therefore, the District Forum, Haridwar has no jurisdiction to hear the matter and decide the case.  There is no branch or dealership of respondent No. 1 at Roorkee and Haridwar.  The appellant has also not made A.R.T.O., Haridwar is necessary party in the consumer complaint, therefore, the consumer complaint was bad for non-joinder of A.R.T.O., Haridwar as necessary party.

12.     The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order and has rightly dismissed the consumer complaint No. 162 of 2008 vide impugned order dated 20.01.2009, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is fit to be upheld.  The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

13.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.  The impugned order dated 20.01.2009 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 162 of 2008, is hereby upheld.  No order as to costs.