Per Shri Shashikant A. Kulkarni, Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [hereinafter to be referred to as ‘CP Act’].
[1] Respondent no.1 is original complainant and respondent no.2 is original opponent no.1. Parties shall hereinafter be referred by their original status for convenience.
[2] Opponent no.2 in the trial forum preferred this appeal separately against judgement and order. The impugned judgment appealed from is rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri in Consumer complaint no.42/96 on 29/09/1999 [impugned order].
[3] Opponent no.2 is the manufacturer of jeeps. Opponent no.2 is a dealer. On 02/11/1995, complainant booked a jeep and paid entire amount of price. Opponent no.2 agreed to deliver the vehicle within 4 weeks. However, on 24/02/1996 i.e. after about 3 months, opponent no.1 allegedly extracted extra amount of Rs.6,087/- from the complainant. Complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opponents and claimed compensation.
[4] Opponent no.1 filed written version to the complaint and denied its liability. Opponent no.2 also filed written version and denied its liability and raised issue of maintainability of the complaint. Opponent no.1 is an authorized dealer. The transaction between the opponent no.1 and 2 is on principal to principal basis. Opponent no.1 is not agent of the opponent no.2. Therefore, opponent no.2 cannot take any responsibility of the alleged deficiency in service.
[5] We have heard learned advocate Mr.Ashutosh Marathe for the appellant/original opponent no.2. However, we do not have benefit to hear anyone on behalf of the respondents. With the help of the party present before us, we have also carefully perused the material placed on record.
[6] Undisputedly, the price of the vehicle increased by Rs.6,087/- from the date of booking or from the date of purchase.
Document purported to be proforma invoice dated 27/10/1995 shows price of the vehicle over Rs.2.68 lac and express in the terms and conditions which include delivery of vehicle is subject to availability and the price, specifications quoted and subject to change in it without prior notice. Proforma invoice was handed over to the complainant which he presumably understood.
[7] Learned trial forum on surmises and conjunctures observed that the increase in price for Rs.6,087/- must have been recovered by the opponent no.2 to pay it to opponent no.2 and held that opponent no.2/appellant alone is liable to make payment to the complainant, as if the learned trial forum was deciding the suit of recovery of amount and that too without application of mind.
[8] Impugned order thus suffers from illegality and cannot sustain in law. In view of reasons recorded above, we are inclined to allow the appeals. Hence, the order.
ORDER
1.Appeal No.A/99/2316 is allowed.
Impugned order is set aside and replaced as below :-
Consumer complaint no.42/96 stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
2.One set of appeal compilation be retained. Rest be returned to the appellant forthwith.
3.Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith.
Pronounced
Dated 7th May, 2015.
