BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.576/2006 AGAINST C.C.No.992/2005 DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD.
Between:
1. M/s.Orange Auto Ltd.,
Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,
Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. Mr.Ranga Rao, S/o.not known to the
Complainant, Occ:Service, working under
M/s.Orange Auto Ltd., Road No.1,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Appellants/
Opp.parties 1 & 2
A N D
1. Kum..Maanasa, D/o.K.G.K.Prasad,
Aged about 19 years, Occ:Student of
1st MBBS., Deccan College of Medical Sciences
R/o.504, Sri Durga Harmony, Erramanzil Colony
Hyderabad.
2. The Station House Officer,
Panjagutta Police Station,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad. Respondent/
Complainant/O.P.3
Counsel for the Appellants:M/s.V.V.Prabhakara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent:-Mr.K.G.Ravikanth-R1
FA.No.927/2009 AGAINST C.C.No.992/2005 DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD.
Between:
Kum..Maanasa, D/o.K.G.K.Prasad,
Aged about 19 years, Occ:Student of
1st MBBS., Deccan College of Medical Sciences
R/o.504, Sri Durga Harmony, Erramanzil Colony
Hyderabad. ..Appellant/Complainant
AND
1. M/s.Orange Auto Ltd.,
Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,
Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. Mr.Ranga Rao, S/o.not known to the
Complainant, Occ:Service, working under
M/s.Orange Auto Ltd., Road No.1,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
3. The Station House Officer,
Panjagutta Police Station,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad. Respondents/
Opp.parties.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.K.G.Ravikanth
Counsel for the Respondents:-M/s.V.V.Prabhakara Rao-R1 and R2.
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND NINE
(Typed to the dictation of Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
***
These two appeals are disposed of by a common order since both the appeals arise out of the same C.D
The appeal i.e. F.A.No.576/2006 was filed by the opposite party assailing the order of the District Forum directing them to refund Rs.2,70,000/- out of which the opposite parties 1and 2 have already paid Rs.2,60,000/- and to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with repair charges of car Rs.10,037.75 and also pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
The appeal, F.A.No.927/2009 is filed by the complainant dis-satisfied with the reliefs granted by the District Forum.
The facts that led to filing these appeals are briefly as follows
The complainant was a student of 1st MBBS course in Deccan College of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. The complainant submitted that her parents intended to present her a car in the event of her getting admission in the Medical college and to attend classes for training. The complainant’s mother was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 9AE 1234 Maruthi Esteem VX and they thought it would be convenient to exchange the said car with a second hand ALTO car to enable the complainant to attend the training and complete the course. The complainant’s mother authorized her husband to dispose of the Maruthi car and realize the sale deed proceeds including exchanging the car with any suitable car and therefore the complainant’s father approached the 1st opposite party company. The 1st opposite party company offered Maruthi ALTO LXI with white colour bearing registration No.AP 9AV 3777, July, 2004 model and it was fitted with black fibre bumpers and the complainant’s mother’s car price was assessed at Rs.2,05,000/- and the car offered by the 1st opposite party was assessed at Rs.2,70,000/- and the difference of Rs.65,000/- was paid in cash on 15-6-2005 vide receipt No.696. Accordingly the complainant’s father handed over the Maruthi Esteem car and took delivery of Maruti ALTO car on 15-6-2005 itself and the parties agreed to get the vehicles transferred on the prospective owner’s name at the earliest point of time. While things stood thus, the 2nd opposite party deputed an employee to the residence of the complainant within 10 days with a request to obtain signatures of the complainant’s mother on blank printed forms to enable the opposite parties to get the Esteem car transferred on their names. Though the complainant’s mother had insisted for simultaneous transfer of ALTO car, the 2nd opposite party promised to do the needful and therefore the complainant’s mother signed the blank printed papers and handed over the duplicate keys and insurance cover note of the vehicle. It is submitted that inspite of repeated requests for handing over the duplicate key and also the relevant transfer papers, the opposite parties paid a deaf ear and thereby the complainant was put to lot of inconvenience. Later on the complainants were informed that there was a finance burden on the ALTO car and thereby the complainant’s father returned the ALTO car to the opposite party No.1 at 1.30 p.m. on 12-8-2005 and obtained an acknowledgement and thereby demanded by a letter through fax on 16-8-2005 to return Rs.2,70,000/- immediately. The opposite party No.1 after receiving the fax, had immediately trespassed in to the premises of the complainant and abandoned the ALTO car without permission and obstructing movement of other vehicles and therefore the complainant’s father made a complaint to 3rd opposite party against opposite parties 1 and 2. Thereafter only around 9 p.m. on 16-8-2005, the 2nd opposite party had taken back the car but failed to return the Esteem car along with Rs.65,000/- and the complainant was also deprived of the use of the existing car owned by her mother and therefore the complainant approached the District Forum for various reliefs.
Opposite party No.2 filed a counter on his behalf and on behalf of opposite party No.1 stating that the allegations made in the complaint were false and contended that the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable. They submitted that the complainant was not a party and all the documents were filed in the name of the complainant’s mother who was the owner of Car No.AP 9 AE 1234 Esteem Model and she alone was entitled to the amounts and the complainant was not a consumer. The opposite parties submitted that at the instance of the father of the complainant they issued a receipt dated 15-6-2005 for Rs.65,000/- and that the complainant used the car for two months and came forward with an altogether a false story.
Opposite party No.3 though received notice did not contest the matter.
In support of her case, the complainant filed her affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A24. On the other hand, opposite parties filed affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.B1 to B7.
On a consideration of the material available on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service and directed them to refund Rs.2,70,000/- out of which the opposite parties 1and 2 had already paid Rs.2,60,000/- and to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with repair charges of car Rs.10,037.75 and also pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred F.A.No.576/2006 and complainant preferred FA 927/2009.
The opposite parties contended that the District Forum erred in taking the complaint on file even after a specific objection was taken by the opposite parties with regard to its maintainability. It failed to appreciate the specific contention that the complainant was not the owner of the car and thus she cannot maintain the complaint and therefore the order under appeal had to be reversed and set aside. The Forum failed to appreciate that the relationship between the complainant and opposite parties was not that of consumer-trader as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the appellants were neither manufacturer, dealer nor seller but only a facilitator/mediator in second hand cars. Opposite parties submitted that the District Forum had not appreciated the documentary proof marked as Exs.B1 to B7 and that the entire transaction was dealt by the father of the complainant with respect to the car belonging to the mother of the complainant and therefore the complainant did have locus standi to maintain the complaint.
The complainant filed appeal F.A.No.927/2009 seeking enhancement of the compensation as she had to hire taxi for going to the college and that the Forum erred in granting only Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.
The points that arise for consideration are:
1. What is the status of the complainant vis-à-vis the contract that is sought to be enforced in this consumer dispute and whether the complainant has locus standi to maintain this complaint?
2. Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any enhancement of compensation as sought in her appeal?
4. To what result?
In order for a person to maintain a consumer complaint, it is essential for such person to show that a consumer-trader or a consumer service provider relationship was in existence and the defect in goods or deficiency in service thereof had emanated in the course of working out rights against each other during the course of such relationship.
The only method by which such relationship can be established is by proving a contract between the aspiring consumer complainant and the opposite party trader or service provider. It is curious to note that in the present case, this requirement has not at all been fulfilled. On the face of it, the complainant was not a party to the deal with the opposite party as the documents unmistakably show that it was the father of the complainant that had entered into a contract with the opposite party as borne out from Ex.A2. This factum of the relationship that existed between the father of the complainant and the opposite parties as contracting parties is made amply clear not only by pleadings but also by various documents some of which embody the clear cut admissions to that effect by the complainant and her father which in a row reinforced and corroborated as presently shown the basic fact that the complainant was not at all a privy to the contract that is sought to be enforced in this consumer dispute and surely stands out as a third party to the contract notwithstanding the fact that she happened to be the daughter of the person who actually entered into the deal with the opposite party involving an exchange of vehicles, one belonging to his wife that is the mother of the complainant and the other he intended to acquire for the benefit no doubt of the complainant meant to be used by her for commuting to her college. In the complaint itself, the complainant had this to say about her father’s role in the deal, in page 3 at paras 3, 4 and 5 as hereunder:
3. It is submitted that the complainant’s mother being registered owner of Maruthi Esteem car has authorized her husband to dispose of the car owned by her and realize the sale proceeds including exchanging the car owned by her with any other suitable car of their choice. In the process the complainant’s father had visited several showrooms and car dealers who are dealing with purchase and sale of second hand cars.
4. it is submitted that the complainant’s father had come across a car with the 1st opposite party company, which was according to their choice and also could able to the needs of the complainant. The car offered by the 1st opposite party was Maruthi ALTO LXi with white colour bearing registration No.AP 9 AV 3777, July, 2004 model. Further, it was fitted black fibre bumpers. The complainant’s father in his wisdom and experience with light motor vehicles, thought it fit that the vehicle offered by the 1st opposite party is not only almost a new vehicle but also rather gives confidence to the complainant, while driving the vehicle. Since the complainant has to work hard to undergo the rigours of the Medical Education and has to get through 1st MBBS in the 1st attempt only. Even, if colour bumpers fitted to the vehicle, it is a common phenomenon to get scratches over it, day in and day out due to the unruly traffic. Thereby, the complainant’s father thought it fit to present the vehicle offered by the 1st opposite party company, though the price quoted by the opposite parties 1 and 2 was on higher side, instead of going for a new vehicle, he preferred to purchase the ALTO car in question.
It is submitted that the complainant’s father and the 1st opposite party represented by the 2nd opposite party claiming himself to be the Manager, have negotiated and finalized the transaction on 15-6-2005 on the following terms and conditions:
a) The car owned by the complainant’s mother being AP9 AE1234 Maruti Esteem VX, December, 2000 white colour was assessed at Rs.2,05,000/-
b) The car offered by the 1st opposite party being AP 9AV 3777, Maruthi ALTO LXi, July, 2004 white colour was assessed at Rs.2,70,000/-
c) The difference of an amount of Rs.65,000/- was due and payable for exchange of the above vehicles on behalf of the complainant
d) Complainant’s father paid an amount of Rs.65,000/- in cash on 15-6-2005 and obtained a cash receipt vide receipt No.696 from the 1st opposite party in the name of the complainant herein
e) Accordingly, the complainant’s father had handed over the Maruthi Esteem car and took delivery of Maruthi ALTO car on 15-6-2005 itself.
f) That the parties also agreed to get the vehicles transferred on to the prospective owner’s names at the earliest point of time simultaneously.
g) It was clearly agreed to by the parties that the vehicles in question were exchanged on the above referred to terms and conditions.
It is very clear from Ex.A2 the document what is called agreement-cum-receipt dated 15-6-2005, the parties to the said agreement are only the opposite party No.1 and the father of the complainant who styled himself as customer. This is the document of the complainant herself. At this juncture, it is pertinent to deal with the submission of the complainant/respondent that it was she who obtained the receipt for the payment made as per Ex.A1 and therefore should be accepted as being a privy to the contract. This is simply absurd for two reasons, the mere obtainment of receipt by itself does not make such a person, the party to the contract. Moreover, it is very conspicuous that the name of the complainant had crept in Ex.A1 receipt as a material alteration if not an interpolation. It does not require much of wisdom to come to a conclusion that the name of the complainant did not find place in Ex.A1 originally and it came to be inserted overhead the regular field in which her father’s name was filled up. Thus the issuance of the receipt in the name of the father of the complainant is more in-keeping with the main document Ex.A2 agreement wherein the name of the complainant could not be interpolated. That the introduction of the complainant’s name into Ex.A1 was an after thought and might have been made specifically for this complaint is evident from some other documents relied upon the complainant herself. In this connection, Ex.A14, a document relied upon by the complainant herself , was a letter addressed by the father of the complainant to the opposite party. The said letter reveals that the father of the complainant did not mince words to indicate that he was the person that entered the deal in question. It is how he wrote in the first paragraph of the said letter.
“This is with reference to your Receipt bearing No.696, dated 15—2005 wherein I have taken Maruthi ALTO LXi bearing registration No.AP9AV3777 in exchange for my Maruti Esteem VX bearing registration No.AP9AE 1234. I have paid Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five thousands) in cash on the same day and handed over my car and took delivery of the above referred to Alto vehicle”
The receipt referred to therein is the same as Ex.A1. So he himself revealed that the said Ex.A1 was a receipt in his favour disproving at the same time that it was a receipt issued in the name of the complainant as ultimately tried to be shown by inserting the name of the complainant therein. Likewise in Ex.A15, the text of the document clearly shows that he characterized himself as the party to the deal which ofcourse he claimed to have cancelled four days earlier. Ultimately the cat is out of the bag in Ex.A24, which is an authorization given by the mother of the complainant in favour of her father. The said document reads as follows:
AUTHORIZATION
‘I, Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, W/o.K.G.K.Prasad, aged about 48 years, Occ:Government Service, R/o. # 504, Sri Durga Harmony, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad do hereby declare that I had authorized my husband to deal with my esteem car in exchange of ALTO car. Accordingly, I have signed the relevant forms for transfer of esteem car bearing No.AP O AE 1234. Till date, I have not received the sale proceeds of may car. My daughter filed a consumer case for return of esteem car together with Rs.65,000/- paid on her name for not transferring ALTO car on her name. Since, the entire transaction relates to exchange of ALTO car with my esteem car, I hereby authorize my daughter Kum.K.Manasa to receive the sale proceeds of the esteem car on my behalf’.
Now coming to the ‘B’ series, Ex.B2 relied upon by the opposite parties clearly reveals that the father of the complainant was the person who handled the whole deal and it is not out of place again to excerpt the text of it hereunder:
I, Mr.K.G.K.Prasad on behalf of my wife Mrs.M.Kananka Durga registered owner of car of Reg.No.AP9AE 1234 esteem, Chassis No.MA3EBE41S00-270823, Engine No.G13B-IN-638732 have sold my car to you for an agreed amount of Rs.2,05,000/- (Rupees two lakh five thousand only). I have handed over the following documents along with the car at your showroom on 15-6-2005 at 5.30 p.m. I bear responsibility for any legal obligations or penalties like parking tickets etc. till the handover date of 15-6-2005.
The documents handed over are:
1. Original R.C.
2. Insurance policy
3. Transfer forms.
The accessories are:
1. Stereo
2. 2 speaker rear
3. Jac, Rod, Wheel spanner, Hazard sign & step in.
Since I am purchasing an ATO LXi of Reg.No.AP9AV 3777 chassis No.376271 Engine No.3097474 from you for an agreed amount of Rs.2,70,000/- (Two lakhs seventy thousand only). I have paid the balance amount of Rs.65,000/- (sixty five thousand only) against receipt No.
The following are the documents
1. Original R.C.
2. Transfer forms.
The documents of No Objection Certificate from the hypothecator Citi Bank Financiers shall be handed over to you at the earliest along with insurance policy and insurance transfer letter. The stereo and speaker are handed over along the the car on 15-6-06 at 6.00 p.m.
Thus except for Ex.A1 which is clearly shown to have failed in inspiring any confidence, all the other documents on this subject unmistakably show that the deal was between the father of the complainant and the opposite parties and the complainant was not at all in the field . It may be true that she was the beneficiary of this deal as the car was planned to be arranged for her convenience. Just because she happened to be the beneficiary, she cannot agitate the rights that directly engender from the contract. which is clearly between her father and the opposite parties. Thus this scenario demonstrates that the complainant lacks in locus standi to file the complaint. There is a peculiar feature in this case. It is the father of the complainant that struck the deal with the opposite parties to sell a car belonging to his wife in exchange for a car for the benefit of his daughter. Even according to Ex.A24 to work out this deal and implement it, it is the mother of the complainant alone that gave authorization to the father and it was not the complainant that authorized him to purchase a car on her behalf. There is atleast no such evidence available on record. Thus, the complainant is totally a third party to the contract that is sought to be enforced by this litigation and therefore the very complaint is not maintainable in law.
The District Forum readily granted to the complainant the relief which is germane to the enforcement of the contract without adequately addressing the question whether she was competent at all to maintain the complaint. This cannot be accepted as valid. The order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside and therefore hereby set aside.
The complainant too filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the relief granted to her. But in the appeal preferred by the opposite parties, we have come to a firm conclusion that the very complaint by the complainant has no legs to stand and was liable to be dismissed. As such there is absolutely no ground to consider any enhancement in favour of the complainant as even the relief granted to her by the District Forum has come to be overturned in the foregoing discussion.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the opposite parties in F.A.No.576/2006 is allowed while the appeal filed by the complainant in F.A.No.927/09 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in either of these appeals in the circumstances of the case.
Sd/-
MEMBER.
Sd/-
MEMBER.
Jm Dt.16-12-2009
