National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Janwant Singh/Tata Engineering & ... vs Malwa Automobiles & Ors./Tata ... on 30 September, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2777 OF 2007 (Against order dtd. 06.07.2007 in Appeal No.269/2004 of the State Commission, Delhi) Jaswant Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Malwa Automobiles (P) Ltd. & Ors. ......Respondents REVISION PETITION NO. 2778 OF 2007 (Against order dtd. 06.07.2007 in Appeal No.501/2004 of the State Commission, Delhi) Jaswant Singh .......Petitioner Vs. M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co.Ltd. & Ors. .....Respondents REVISION PETITION NO. 4057 OF 2007 (Against order dtd. 06.07.2007 in Appeal No.269/2004 of the State Commission, Delhi) M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co.Ltd. .....Petitioner Vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr. ......Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For Petitioner : Mr.Himanshu Bhuttan, Advocate (R.P.Nos.2777/07 &2778/07) For Respondent : Mr.Aditya Narain, Ms.Shuchi Singh (R.P.No.4057/2007) and Mr.Varun Kumar, Advocates Pronounced on 30th September, 2011 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER Shri Jaswant Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) has filed R.P. Nos. 2777/07 and 2778/07 and M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.1) has filed R.P. No. 4057/07 being aggrieved by the single order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal Nos.A-269/2004 and A-501/2004. Since the parties and facts in these revision petitions are the same, we propose to dispose them of with a common order by taking the facts from R.P. No.2778 of 2007.
The Petitioner in his complaint before the District Forum had stated that he had purchased a brand new Tata Indica Car (Model 2002) manufactured by Respondent No.1, for a sum of Rs.2,71,040/- from its dealer, M/s Malwa Automobiles(P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.2). Soon after the delivery of the vehicle, it developed mechanical problems and the Petitioner, therefore, approached Respondent No.1 to rectify the same. It was revealed later that the vehicle that he had purchased was not a brand new one manufactured in 2002 as assured by Respondent No.2 but was manufactured in 2000. This was apparent from the Chassis No.600232FZZP33595 wherein the Code FZZP stands for the year 2000 and not for 2002. However, all the invoices and other documents given by the Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner deceitfully showed the year of manufacture of the said Car as 2002 instead of 2000. When confronted with this, Respondent No.2 refused to entertain the Petitioners genuine grievance and, therefore, he approached Respondent No.1 i.e. the manufacturer and there also he could not get any redressal. Further, Respondent No.1 was also not able to rectify the defects in the running of the vehicle. Being aggrieved by the negligence and callous approach of both Respondents, Petitioner issued legal notices to them with no avail except for some false assurances. Therefore, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and request that the Respondents be directed to pay the Petitioner the entire amount paid by him for purchase of the car, Rs.2 lakhs for mental pain and agony along with interest @ 24% per annum.
The above contentions of the Petitioner were denied by Respondents. According to Respondent No.2, the Petitioner never came to his showroom and only a broker came to purchase the vehicle and that too after making a part-payment.
Further, no facts were concealed by the Respondent from the Petitioner and from the Chassis number which was stated in the invoice, it was clear that the vehicle was not manufactured in 2002.
It was further stated that the prevalent market price of the vehicle in question at the time of its purchase was Rs.3,22,192/-, but the Petitioner was given a discount of Rs.51,152/- since the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2000. Respondent No.1 who also denied Petitioners allegations stated that it had never concealed from Respondent No.2, the dealer, that the vehicle was manufactured in 2000. In fact, a circular had been issued by Respondent No.1 where it was specifically mentioned that these old cars are being disposed of and special discounts are being given along with the price list showing the difference between the cars manufactured in the year 2002 and 2002. Therefore, Respondent No.1 as a manufacturer was not guilty of any deficiency of service. The responsibility if any lay with the Respondent No.2 who is not an agent of Respondent No.1.
The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint by holding both the Respondents guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and directed that Respondents jointly and severally return the entire amount of Rs.2,71,040/- to the Petitioner after taking back the vehicle in question, Rs.50,000/- as compensation was awarded on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost.
The District Forum further directed that in order to eliminate the possibility of such unfair trade practice by the Respondents and in the interest of the consumer, Respondent No.1(manufacturer) will fix a plate beneath the bonnet of every car giving the year of manufacturing in place of the code numbers and similar information should also be specifically stated in the invoice issued by dealers to customers.
Aggrieved by this order, both Respondents filed separate appeals before the State Commission which were dismissed through a common order by observing as follows:
In our view the dealer had played a fraud upon the respondent.
Circular was issued by the manufacturer that old cars are being sold at discounted price. No manufacturer would sell a car to the dealer at such a lower price of that of actual wholesale price of the car of model of 2002 at the price that the model of 2000 carried at the relevant time.
The circumstance of dealer having been informed through circular as well as the invoice that these cars are being sold at discounted price is sufficient to nail the dealer as to the misrepresentation to the purchaser.
Dealer is not naive person who does not know as to what was the price of the car being sold by him which were manufactured in the year 2002 and why he was selling the car showing the manufacturing year 2002 at much lower price. .However, at the same time the manufacturer also cannot escape from its not being candid in mentioning in the invoice billed upon the dealer that the car being sold through the dealer was model of 2000 and take refuge under the circular which was neither in the knowledge of the purchaser nor was shown to the purchaser by the dealer. Any purchaser of the car would believe the dealer on its face value by seeing invoice bill and if the invoice bill of the car does not specify that the car was of model of a particular year the manufacturer has also played fraud upon purchaser through its dealer.
The State Commission also observed that since vehicle has been used for more than five years, no useful purpose would be served to direct the Respondents to remove defects or replace it or to return the price and therefore, directed that a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1 lakh inclusive of litigation cost being shared by both Respondents would meet the ends of justice.
The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have filed the present revision petitions. Respondent No.1 has not come in revision against the order of the State Commission.
Counsel for both parties made oral submissions.
Counsel for Petitioner reiterated that the District Forum had rightly held both Respondents guilty of deficiency in service and had, therefore, directed them to adequately compensate the Petitioner. However, the State Commission erred in reducing the relief given to him by the District Forum which should be restored as ordered by the District Forum since both Foras had rightly concluded that the Respondents were guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Counsel for Respondent No.1 brought to our notice the circular issued by it to all its principals and dealers clearly stating that for Indica cars manufactured in the year 2000, discounts were offered with a view to dispose of these cars. These discounts were not applicable to the fresh stock of Indica cars manufactured subsequently under any other scheme. Therefore, no fact was hidden from the dealer and thereafter if any fraud was committed by the dealer, the responsibility was squarely that of the dealer. In the instant case the Respondent No.1s relationship with Respondent No.2 (dealer) was on principal to principal basis and he not being its agent, Respondent No.1 could not be held liable or responsible for any deficiency in service or any other malpractice committed by Respondent No.2. In fact Respondent No.1 had already levied a fine of Rs.3,50,000/- on Respondent No.2 for having misrepresented facts to customers.
We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. The fact pertaining to the purchase of the vehicle by the Petitioner through Respondent No.2 who was a dealer of Respondent No.1 is not in dispute. It is also a fact as concluded by the Fora below being courts of fact that on the documents and invoices regarding the vehicle in question supplied to the Petitioner by Respondent No.2, the year 2002 is stated instead of 2000. While it may also be a fact that Chassis number was correctly recorded and that as per Code FZZP mentioned, it stands for June, 2000 and is not used for cars manufactured in 2002, but a customer is usually not likely or expected to know what this code signifies. Also, merely because a discount was given does not mean that it was an old car manufactured in 2000. Since as stated earlier, the documents/invoice given by Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner clearly indicated that the car was manufactured in 2002, we agree with the Fora below that Respondent No.2 is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the present case. So far as Respondent No.1 is concerned, we do not agree with the Fora below that he is to also share the blame. It is on record that Respondent No.1 being the manufacturer of the vehicle had through a circular informed all its dealers that the cars manufactured in the year 2000 could be given at a discount so that they could clear the stock of older cars. This fact was in the knowledge of Respondent No.2 since he was in receipt of the circular.
In fact, Respondent No.1 had levied a fine on this particular dealer for misrepresenting facts to the customers.
Further, it is important to note in this context that the Respondent No.2, i.e. the dealer, is not an agent of Respondent No.1 as the cars were sold on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis and, therefore, Respondent No.1 cannot be held liable for any acts of omission and commission including deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Respondent No.2. We feel that the Fora below erred in not appreciating these facts while holding Respondent No.1 also guilty of deficiency in service.
We, therefore, modify the order of the State Commission by concluding that Respondent No.2 was guilty of deficiency in service. We absolve Respondent No.1, the manufacturer, of the same. Since the vehicle has now been used for 9 years, we agree that there is no case to order its replacement. However, to compensate the Petitioner for the mental agony and harassment caused by Respondent No.2, we direct that Respondent No.2 pay him Rs.1 lakh within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of this order failing which interest @ 6% shall also be applicable on this amount from the date of default.
The revision petitions stand disposed of on the above terms.
Sd/-
..
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/