ORDER
(Passed this on 18th November, 2016)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.
01. By this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act the complainant has alleged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against Opposite Parties.
02. Facts in short are that the O.P’S are local automobile dealer and Authorised Officer of Maruti Suzuki company respectively. The complainant No.-1 is son of the complainant No.-2. The O.P.-1 sells vehicles manufactured by the O.P.-2 as its agent. The O.P.-1 is also a licensed holder of Maruti True Value, which purchases used vehicles manufactured by the O.P.-2. The complainants desired to buy a vehicle of Maruti make and when they came across an advertisement given by the O.P’s, they went to their office. There the complainants were apprised about sale of used vehicles under the name True Value. Accordingly the complainants decided to purchase a Maruti WagaonR bearing No. MH-31-AH-1609 from the O.P.-1 in exchange scheme of his Maruti Omni car. The sale price of the Omni car was decided to be adjusted to the price of new vehicle. The complainant then purchased new WagonR for Rs. 3,78,799/- and the complainant No.2 sold his Omni car to the O.P.-1 for Rs.87,500/-. The O.P.-1 had assured to give exchange bonus of Rs.24,000/- on new vehicle to the complainant No.1 and Loyalty bonus of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant No.2. However, the O.P. gave exchange bonus of Rs.22,000/- only and for old car gave Rs.87,000/- only. Thus the complainant No.1 had to pay Rs.2,58,799/- for new car. The Loyalty bonus of Rs.15,000/- was not included in the exchange scheme nor paid to the complainant No.2. Thus the O.P’s deliberately caused loss of Rs. 18,500/- to the complainants. On assurance that the amount would be paid to them, the complainants paid Rs.2,58,799/-. But the O.P’s failed to pay that amount . Hence, it is prayed to direct the O.P’s to pay Rs.18,500/- with 18% interest from 15.10.2009 along with compensation and litigation cost.
03. Both the O.P’s have filed their written versions. According to the O.P.-1 it is not disputed that the complainant No.1 purchased Maruti WagonR car from it for Rs.3,78,799/-. But it is denied that in exchange the complainant No.2 sold his Omni car for Rs.87,500/-. In fact, it purchased the Omni car for Rs.75,000/- and rest Rs. 12,000/- was paid as exchange bonus. It is also denied that it offered to give discount of Rs.24,000/- on new car. Such concession on new vehicles is offered for limited period. When such scheme was informed to the complainants, they booked new car after two months and that time discount of Rs.22,000/- was offered. It is also denied that the O.P’s offered Loyalty bonus of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant No.2. Exchange bonus of Rs.12,000/- only was assured and it was paid to him. It is also denied that Rs.87,500/- was promised to be paid, but only Rs.87,000/- was paid. From the cost of new car Rs.87,000/- was adjusted and a cheque of Rs. 500/- was given to the complainant No.2. Denying that any false promises were given, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint
04. The O.P.-2 has stated that the complainant is not a consumer as there was no hire of service or contract with him. No money was paid to the O.P.-2. It is a manufactured company and does not sell vehicles directly to any customers, but dealer sells vehicles under its own invoice and as per terms with the customer. The O.P.-2 is not liable for any act of the dealer. The relation between the O.P.-2 and dealer is based on Principal to Principal. There is no privity of contract with the complainant. Denying any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
05. We have heard rival submissions. Perused the documents. In the light of submissions, documents and facts we record our findings with reasons as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
06. The complaint is restricted to the balance amount of Rs.18,500/-. Admittedly the complainant purchased new car from the O.P.-1 in exchange of old car. According to him he was offered Rs.87,500/- on old car and further discount of Rs.24000/- and royalty of Rs.15,000/- were offered by the OP1. But actually the for old car Rs.87,000/- was given and discount of Rs.12,000/- only was given. No Loyalty was given. Thus in all Rs.18,500/- was less in total concession amount.
07. The counsel for the complainants has filed the copy of invoice / quotation in support of the complaint. Loyalty bonus of Rs.15,000/- and a scheme of Rs.24,000/- are mentioned in it and the said scheme was valid till September 2009. A sale letter dated 15.10.2009 is also filed which shows the complainant No.2 sold his old car to the O.P.-1 for Rs.75,000/- +12,000/-, total Rs.87,5000/-. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to examine one controversy raised by the counsel for the O.P’s. According to the O.P.-1 the scheme of discount and exchange bonus were valid for limited period and the new car was booked after two months from the date of quotation and that time exchange bonus was only Rs. 22,000/-. He particularly invited our attention to the date of the Quotation, which according to the complainant is 28.9.2009 and according to the O.P. it is 28.7.2009. Thus the dispute is about the month; whether it is 7 or 9. Because the figure 7 or 9, whatever it may be, is so written that it could be taken as 7 or 9. But the counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the figure is 7 and not 9, and for that purpose he urged us to look at the other figures written in the Quotation letter. The figure 7 appears at various places in this document and the way the figure 7 is written is quite different from the figure denoting the month in the date of the document. Even from the receipt
of booking amount it is evident that the booking amount was paid on 30.9.2009, which indicates the date on the quotation letter must be 29.9.2009.
08. Coming back to the main controversy, the counsel for the OP submitted that the exchange scheme and other discounts assured at that time to the complainant was applicable prevailing at the time of delivery. We do not concur with him, because as per the Quotation it was the price, which would be applicable prevailing at the time of delivery. As per the Quotation the scheme of exchange bonus Rs.24,000/- and Loyalty Rs.15,000/- were valid till September 2009. So when the new car was booked by paying booking amount of Rs.11000/- on 30.9.2009, the said scheme was very much in operation. The counsel for the O.P. then submitted that as per the letter of consumer offer, for WagonR car exchange bonus was Rs.22,000/- only. However. This sale letter shows the offer was for the month of October2009. The complainant is not concerned with this offer as his booking was in September 2009 and he was assured of offers which were valid till September 2009.
09. Next contention of the counsel for the O.P. is that since the complainant No.2 has given sale letter dated 15.10.2009 whereby he willingly sold his old car for Rs. 75,500/- with Rs.12,000/- as Loyalty, now he cannot raise dispute. In this letter an amount of Rs.75,500/-+ 12,000/- , total Rs.87,5000/- is typed. It is tried to canvass that the old car was sold for Rs.75,500/- and exchange bonus Rs.12,000/- was given. But the O.P. could not satisfy why the exchange bonus was reduced to Rs.12,000/- when it was Rs.15,000/- till September 2009. It is further submitted on behalf of the O.P. that after adjusting Rs.87,000/- from the price of new car, further sum of Rs.500/- was paid to the complainant by a cheque. In fact, this submission is self contradictory. In the written version at one place it is denied that the old car was sold for Rs.87,500/- and mentioned that the old car was sold for Rs.75,500/-, and subsequently mentioned that it was sold for Rs.87,000/- and a cheque of Rs.500/- was later given, thus total amount adjusted was Rs.87,500/-. The copy of the cheque is filed and it is not denied by the complainants. But it is submitted that Rs.500/- was a refund of petrol which was in the old car. This can be confirmed from the statement of accounts filed by the OP. Rs. 500/- was a refund and not sale price and so it fortifies the complainants´ stand.
10. The counsel for the O.P’s has further contended that the O.P.-2, which is a manufacturing company cannot be held liable. There is no privity of contract between the complainants and the O.P.-2, nor any payment is made to the O.P.-2 nor any service is provided or promised by the O.P.-2. The counsel for the complainants replied that the scheme and offers were given by the Maruti company and by getting attracting to those offers the complainants decided to purchase the car manufactured by the O.P.-2 and the O.P.-1, the Dealer, acts as an agent of the O.P.-2, hence the O.P.-2 is also liable for deficiency in service. In this respect Dealership Agreement is produced wherein it is clearly provided that nothing in the agreement shall make or be deemed to make the Dealer the agent or representative of the O.P.-2 for any purpose. Some judgments are also relied on this point. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v/s Nagendra Prasad Sinha, Revision Petition No. 674/2004 (NC) decided on 4.5.2009 it is clearly held that the Dealer is not the agent of the manufacturing company, but their agreement is based on Principal to Principal basis. Therefore the manufacturing
company cannot be held liable for delivery of vehicle, or refund of money or for compensation. Similar stand is taken in
- V. K. Gupta & Sons v/s M/s Maruti Udyog Revision Pet. No. 3677/2006 (NC) decided on 1.9.2011.
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v/s Purushottam Lal (HUF) Civil Appeal No. 708/2007 (SC) .
We are thus in agreement with the counsel for the O.P’s that the O.P.-2, being a manufacturer, cannot be held liable for the refund or compensation. Only because the O.P.-1 is the authorised dealer of the O.P.-2 for sale of vehicles manufactured by the O.P.-2, that itself does not cast any liability upon the O.P.-2 for any act, omission or deficiency of the O.P.-1. Therefore no reliefs can be granted against the O.P.-2.
11. The O.P.-1, with whom the complainant made deal to purchase the new car in exchange of his old car on certain exchange offers and discounts only, is liable to compensate for its deficiency. The complainant has claimed difference
amount of Rs.18,500/- with interest from 15.10.2009. But as per calculation the less amount comes to Rs.17,500/-. As such, we allow the complaint partly as per following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is partly allowed against the O.P.- No.1.
- The O.P. No.-1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,500/- (In words Seventeen Thousand & Five Hundred only) with 9% p.a. interest from 15.10.2009 to the complainants.
- The O.P. No.-1 shall also pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (In words Rs.Five Thousand only) for mental and physical harassment to the complainants and litigation cost Rs.3000/-(In words Three Thousand only)
- The complaint is dismissed against the O.P. No.-2.
- The order shall be complied within 30 days from receipt of the order.
- Copy of the order shall be given to both the parties free of cost.
line-height:150%'> (03) O.P. Life Insurance Company is also directed to pay cost of Rs.-1000/- (In words Rs. One Thousand only) to the complainant.
(04) The order shall be complied by O.P. Life Insurance Company within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
(05) Copy of the order shall be given to both the parties free of cost.
