State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Om Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs Continental For on 24 July, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 24-07-2007 Complaint Case No. C-376/1997 M/s Sri Om Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Complainant A-98/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020 Versus 1. M/s Continental For, Opposite Party No.1 Automobiles Company, Through Kamal cinema Building, Mr. Surender Goel, Safdarjung Enclave, Advocate. New Delhi-110029. 2. Mahindra Ford, Opposite Party No.2 TNPL Building, Through 35, Anna Salai, Mr. Naveen Anand, Guindy, Chennai-600032. Advocate. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Complainant is a company. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. the complainant has claimed replacement of the car or in the alternative cost of the vehicle along with compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for mental agony and harassment.
2. Relevant facts, in brief, are that OP No.2 is the manufacturer of luxury cars, being sold in the name of the Ford Escort. OP No.1 is the agent of OP No.2. Complainant entered into an agreement for rent/hire with OP No.1. Complainant also paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as the initial amount and also agreed to pay Rs. 23,853/- per month to OP No.1.
Complainant was delivered physical possession of the vehicle and the vehicle was duly registered with the Transport Authority.
3. During the initial driving of the car it was found that the car was not upto the mark and was not giving the performance as assured and expected from the car model No. 1.3 LX Petrol. During one of the repairs of the car, it was found that the car provided to the complainant was not having the original metallic paint of the colour red and it was having the white colour in original. It was disclosed by some officers of the OP No.1 that in fact the car supplied to the complainant was not of the model 1.3 LX Petrol but was 1.3 Standard Petrol.
4. At the time of purchasing the vehicle in the month of May 1997 the market price of 1.3 Standard Petrol Car was less than Rs. 6,00,000/- and in order to deceive the complainant, the OP No.1 had painted the car in red in their own and misrepresented to the complainant that the car being purchased by him was of the model 1.3 LX Petrol, although in fact the car was of the model 1.3 Standard Petrol.
5. The complainant was assured by the representative of OP No.2 that suitable remedial steps would be taken immediately but absolutely no response has been forthcoming. OP No.1 has misrepresented to the complainant that the car being purchased by the complainant is of standard quality, grade, style and model but the car delivered to the complainant was not of the same standard quality, grade, style and model as promised.
6. While denying the allegations OP No.1 raised the following contentions:-
(i) That as per the agreement the complainant is to pay Rs. 24,000/- per month for 24 months commencing from 5th May, 1997. The complainant made various defaults and the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured for which the OP No.1 was forced to take action.
(ii) That at the time of giving the vehicle under the rental agreement, it was made clear to the complainant that the ownership of the vehicle shall always vest with the OP No.1 and the vehicle is given on the rental basis.
(iii) That it is denied that the OP No.1 has ever sold the car to the complainant or the complainant has purchased the car. The ownership of the vehicle always remains with OP No.1 and the complainant is only the bailee.
(iv) That so long as the vehicle was given on rental basis it makes no difference if the model is 1.3 LX Petrol or 1.3 Standard petrol.
(v) That the complainant started misusing the vehicle which is totally in contravention to the agreed terms and conditions of the Vehicle Rental Agreement.
7. OP No.2 denied its liability on the ground that OP No.2 is only the manufacturer of the vehicle and asserted that OP had only supplied Ford Escort model NO. 1.3 Standard Petrol to OP No.1 for effecting retail sale. The sale of the vehicle was complete with challan-cum-invoice of the vehicle which also contains the acknowledgement of the OP No.1.
8. OP No.1 on its own illegally, unauthorisedly, dishonestly and fraudulently tampered with the original vehicle, bearing chassis No. TY 304 and engine No. TY 304 in such a manner as to make unfair and illegal profits by converting Ford Escrot 1.3 Standard Petrol car of a lower price. OP No.1 had also illegally, unauthorisedly with fraudulent and dishonest intention of cheating the complainant changed the colour of the car from the original white colour to red colour as demanded by the complainant. Complete investigation and inquiry was held wherein OP No.1 was found to be guilty of the aforesaid complaints highlighted by the complainant. Contract Dealership Agreement between OP No.1 and 2 was terminated. OP No.2 cannot be responsible directly or indirectly for misconduct, actions of omissions or mistakes of OP No.1. OP No.1 alone is liable to make good any loss suffered by the complainant.
9. The close perusal of the versions of OP No.1 and 2 shows that OP No.2 is the manufacturer and it availed the services of OP No.1 for sale of the vehicle. So far as OP No.1 is concerned, it has heavily relied upon the Vehicle Rental Agreement which shows it as owner of the vehicle and complainant as hirer at monthly charges of Rs. 24,000/- with advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- though the complainant claims to have purchased this car on the payment of margin money of Rs. 1 lac and instalments of Rs. 24,000/- per month.
10. Let us accept the version of the OP No.1 that the car was given on hire or rental basis. The kernel of the issue is whether OP No.1 while giving this car to the complainant has represented it as a model of 1.3 LX Petrol or not and whether it had painted in red colour on its own by showing it as a model 1.3 LX Petrol whereas in actuality 1.3 Standard Petrol and whether the vehicle was substandard and was not giving due service as expected from the model 1.3 LX Petrol.
11. On one of the occasions when the car was taken for repairs it transpired that its original colour was white whereas subsequently it was painted in red to represent it as a model of 1.3 LX Petrol, though in actuality it is model 1.3 Standard Petrol.
12. Aforesaid representation made by OP No.1, even if the car was given on hire basis or rental basis amounts to unfair trade practice as the complainant had suffered due to the substandard quality of the car as to misrepresentation of model of the car and its having been re-painted to make it look like a new car and thereby complainant have suffered loss in business even if it was using for their personal use.
13. However, OP No.1 states that the complainant returned the vehicle as he was not in a position to make the payment of monthly rent. If it is so the OP No.1 is liable to at least refund the advance amount received by it.
However, facts and allegations do not make out a case of unfair trade practice or a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2, the manufacturer.
14. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint to the limited extent that the OP No.1 shall refund the advance of Rs. 1 lac received by it on the premise of its own representation that the car was given on rent with advance of Rs. 1 lac and was rented by the complainant because he paid monthly rent.
15. Complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
16. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
17. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
18. Announced on the 24th July, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj