BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 31/07/2010

Date of Order : 31/01/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 423/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. Shortly, the facts behind the complaint are as under :-

The complainant purchased a Maruti RitzVDI BS IV from the opposite party's showroom, that was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party after exchanging his 2009 vehicle Hundai i10. The vehicle offered by the 1^st opposite party was of 2010 make. The vehicle was taken delivery by the complainant, believing the assurance that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2010. But he was shell shocked, when he came to know that the vehicle was in fact manufactured in 2009, when he received the Registration Certificate from the Motor Vehicles Department. Thus, the complainant has incurred a loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the transaction. When a legal notice was caused to be sent, no reply was given to him. Hence, this complaint seeking relief for replacement of the disputed vehicle with one manufactured in 2010 and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

2. Separate versions have been filed by the opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party contended that the year of manufacture is determined by the manufacturer with reference to minimum cut off chassis number fixed by them which will be intimated to all the dealers and the Transport Commissioners in each states in India. The minimum cut off chassis number for Ritz model vehicle was fixed at 148261. Accordingly, the 1^st opposite party as the registered dealer has issued the sale certificate in form 21 to registering the complainant's vehicle to the Regional Transport Officer, Cochin clearly stating the chassis number of vehicle as 150043 and month and year of manufacturing as January 2010. So, also informed the insurer of the vehicle M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. the year of manufacturing as 2010. It is true that no reply notice was given to the lawyer notice, but offered assistance in rectifying that mistake committed in the Motor Vehicles Department.

3. In the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party, they have raised the question of maintainability of the complaint against them. They raised the contention that the relationship between them and the 1^st opposite party was not that of principal and agent, but it was of principal-to-principal. In that background, they are of the view that the 2^nd opposite party are in no way liable to provide any reliefs to the complainant.

4. The maintainability of the complaint was kept in abeyance till disposal of the complaint. The complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked for him. The witnesses for the opposite parties were examined as DW1 and DW2. Exts. B1 to B8 were marked for them. The parties were heard.

5. The following points stem out for determination :-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable against the 2^nd opposite party?

2. Whether the opposite parties have suppressed true facts regarding the vehicle from the complainant?

3. If the answers to point Nos. i. and ii. are in affirmative, consequent reliefs?

6. Point No. i) :- The moot question raised by the 2^nd opposite party is as to whether the complaint can be maintained against them so as to seek any relief from them. They contend that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant and them are total strangers to the transaction. They have parted with the ownership and possession over the disputed vehicle as soon as it was purchased by the 1^st opposite party on payment of consideration. The nature of relationship between the opposite parties is that of principal-to-principal and the 1^st opposite party is not the agent of the 2^nd opposite party for the purpose of sale of the vehicle. To buttress their arguments, they have cited at the bar some relevant rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It is pertinent to note that the pleadings of the 2^nd opposite party mainly centers round clause 5 of Ext. B5 dealership agreement. To buttress their agreements, they ha e cited at the bar some relevant rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

7. It is pertinent to note that the pleading of the 2^nd opposite party mainly centres round clause 5 of the Ext. B5 dealership Agreement where it is provided as follows :

“Nothing in this Agreement shall make or be deemed to make the Dealer the agent or representative of MSIL for any purpose and the Dealer shall not describe or represent itself as such. The Dealer has no right or authority to bind MSIL by any contract or representation whatsoever with or to any third party or to assume any obligation of any third party on behalf of MSIL. MSIL shall not be responsible nor shall Dealer have any authority to render MSIL responsible for any deposits received by the Dealer form the purchasers of products.”

In interpreting a similar provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala II (1994) CPJ 21 (SC), it is observed that the relationship between the dealer and the Indian Oil Corporation is one of the principal-to-principal basis and not as a principal-to-agent.

8. In Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Arjun Singh, the Hon'ble State Commission had the occasion to determine the nature of relationship between the dealer and the Maruti Udyog Limited, the 2^nd opposite party in our case and it was pointed out as follows :

“Keeping in view the said limits of authority, the relationship between the Marti Udyog Ltd. and the dealer is on the basis of Principal to Principal and as such the Maruti Udyog Ltd. would not be liable for the acts of the dealer.”

Applying the above dictums laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and National Commission, the Hon'ble National Commission has recently in Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Prasad Singh, once again, reiterated that the relationship existing between Maruti Udyog Ltd. and its dealers are governed by dealership agreement executed between them and they are not bound together as principal and agent and they are only two independent parties. Consequently, Maruti Udyog Ltd. was held not liable to the customers for the acts of the dealer. Relying on the above principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court and National Commission, we hold that the 2^nd opposite party is not liable in any manner to the complainant for the acts of the 1^st opposite party. The fall out of this finding is that the complaint is not maintainable against the 2^nd opposite party.

9. Point No. ii) :- Secondly, the complainant has alleged that he has been defrauded by the opposite parties as he has been delivered a vehicle which was manufactured in 2009 with the impression that it was made in 2010. This allegation has been refuted by the 2^nd opposite party by producing material evidence to show that the vehicle delivered to the complainant was manufactured in fact in 2010. Ext. B1 communication discloses the cut off Chassis No. of Ritz for the year 2010 as 148261. Ext. B2 Form 21 also states that month and year of manufacture is January 2010. Ext. B3 Certificate of Insurance stated that year of manufacture of the impugned vehicle is 2010. The dispute springs out of the endorsement In Ext. A1 certificate of registration showing that year of manufacture is 2009. When the matter was brought to the notice of the 2^nd opposite party, there was no reply from them. But they claim that they had lend their support in correcting the statement in the registration certificate.

10. On an overall evaluation of the materials produced before us, it is clear that there was no attempt to mislead the complainant. In almost all the documents, it is made clear that the year of manufacture of the vehicle under dispute was 2010. In Ext. B7 issued by the 2^nd opposite party with copy to concerned officers in the Transport Department, it is clearly stated that the minimum cut off Chassis No. for Ritz for the year 2010 is 148261. Undoubtedly, the disputed vehicle with Chassis No. 1530043 falls beyond the cut off number and it can be concluded that the year of manufacture is 2010. These documents stands for the proposition that the disputed vehicle falls within the category of the vehicles manufactured in the year 2010. It is quite unfortunate that this dispute arose out of a clerical error that occurred at the time of registration. As a welcome gesture, the 1^st opposite party has promised their support in getting it corrected to 2010. In that perspective, we think the complaint is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of January 2012

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========