National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M.N. Narasimha Reddy vs Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd. ... on 20 December, 1990
JUDGMENT Balakrishna Eradi, J.
(1) The complainant is Consumer Disputes No. 15 of 1990 on the file of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad has come up with this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated June 23,1990 passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act') (2) The respondents in the appeal are the Opposite Parti Nos. I to 4 in the complaint petition namely : (1) The Managing Directer, Maruti Udyog Ltd., New Delhi; (2) .The Regional Manager (North), Maruti Udyog Ltd., New Delhi; (3) M/s Mahalakshmi Motors (p) Limited, Begmpet Road, Hyderabad'and (4) M/s. The Mitra Agencies, authorised dealers for Maruti Udyog Ltd., in Hyderabad.
(3) The complainant Shri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, who is a practicing Advocate in Hyderabad had booked an order for supply and delivery of a Maruti-800 Cc car with Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Mahalakshmi Motors (P) Ltd., Hyderabad. Along with the application for registration of his booking, the complainant had made a deposit of Rs. 10,000.00 and he was assigned allotment No. 1001-N-04440. By letter dated February 1,1990, the complainant was informed by respondent No. 4 that the car against his allotmenl was due for releasee and calling upon him to obtain a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 15,000.00 for 91 days or more in his name from New Bank of India, Mahatma Gandhi Road Branch, Secunderabad. The complainant was further informed by that letter that the balance price of the vehicle amounting to Rs.74,063.34 was payable on intimation of delivery of the vehicle. In compliance with the requirement specified in that letter, the complainant furnished to the dealer a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 15,000.00 in his own name on Feburary 22,1990. With effect from February 22,1990, the procedure in regard to purchase of Maruti vehicles was revised by the company and as a consequence the complainant was called upon to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt for a further amount of Rs. 75,000.00 on or before March 7,1990 in accordance with the revised procedure. The complainant felt aggrieved by this modification of terms effected by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., and filed the complaint before the State Commission seeking in the following reliefs:-
"1. To receive the F.D.R for Rs. 15,000.00 which was deposited. on 20.2.1990, in pursuance of the letter dated 1.2.1990, affidavit which is duly notorised on 22.2.1990 and the covering letter indicating the choice of colour and procure the order,
2. To forbear from disturbing the seniority of allotment made at the time of booking in the month of October, 1986;
3. To forbear from giving of Maruti Cc 800 to any customer below the waiting list of complainant as and when the final payment is made by the complainant; and
4. To award costs of this complaint."
(4) The complaint petition was resisted by the Opposite Parties on various grounds. Firstly, it was urged that inasmuch as there had not been any complected transaction of sale or purchase in the instant case, the complainant could not be regarded as a 'consumer' within the meaning of the said expression as defined in the Act. Nextiy, it was contended that none of the reliefs asked for in the complaint petition fell within the scope of Section 14 of the Act and hence the approach made to the State Commission for obtaining those reliefs in proceedings under the Act was clearly misconceived. It was also submitted by the Opposite Parties that under the terms of the agreement for sale the company had reserved to itself the right to modify and alter the procedure relating to the booking and supply of vehicles and since the complainant had agreed to abide by the procedure for purchase as in force from time to time, he can have no legal grievance against the insistence by the company on compliance with the procedure as revised with effect from February 22,1990. Another contention that was taken up by the Opposite Parties was that the grievance put forward by the complainant did not fall within any of the clauses(i) to (iv) of Section 2 (l) (c) of the Act which defined the expression 'complaint' and hence the petition filed by the appellant-herein could not be regarded as a valid complaint under the Act. There were further submissions made by the Opposite Parties on the facts and merits of the dispute but it is unnecessary to refer to them since the State Commission has dismissed the complaint only on the preliminary groung that the petitioner is not a "consumer".
(5) Notwithstanding the able and persuasive arguments advanced before us by SHri Ranasimha Reddy-appellant, appearing in person, we are unable to find any merit in the contentions urged by him in support of this appeal.
SECTION2(1)(d) defines the expression "Consumer" thus:- "(d) consumer means any person who, buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who bys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of dererred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person;
(6) In order to satisfy the requirement of Clause (i), there must have been a transaction of buying of goods for consideration. The definition contemplates the pre-existence of a completed transaction of sale and purchase and the person who has merely entered into an agreement for purchase of goods will not fall within the scope of the said definition. On a combined reading of Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 2(1) of the Act wherein we get the definitions of "complainant" and "consumer" it is abundantly clear that in relation to transactions of purchase of goods, a valid complaint can be made only in respect of the existence of one or more defects in the goods supplied or the charging by the trader of a price for the goods' in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods. It is thus seen that the scheme of the Act is that a transaction of sale and purchase of goods should have already taken place and the complaint must relate either to any defect from which the goods applied to the complainant suffer or the charging of excessive price by the trader for the goods supplied.
(7) The complainant in the present case has not sought any relief on the basis that he had heard the service of the opposite parties nor has any relief been claimed by him on the basis of any alleged 'deficiency' in the service. Hence the second part of the definition of the "consumer" contained in Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) is not relevant in the present context.
(8) The grievance voiced in the complaint and reiterated before us in the appeal pertained only to the revision by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., of the procedure governing , the booking system with effect from February 22, 1990 in consequence of which the i complainant was required to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt in his own name for a I total sum of Rs. 90,000.00 as against the previous requirement of furnishing a Fixed j Deposit Receipt for only Rs. 15,000.00 . This was essentially a matter pertaining only to the agreement for sale and if the alteration of the Pocedure by the company amounted , to a breach of any of the terms existing agreement between the parties, the complainant only by approaching the Civil Court.
(9) We have already made mention of the fact that the complaint petition does not contain any plea for relief on hte basis that there was an arrangement of hiring of any service for consideration as between the complainant and the opposite parties and that there had been a "deficiency" in the services rendered in pursuance of the said arrangement. It is therefore unnecessary for us to refer to definitions of the words "deficiency" and "service" contained in Clauses (g) and (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act.
(10) An endeavour was made by the appellant during his arguments in support of the appeal to contend that in altering the procedure for booking of Maniti vehicles with effect from February 22, 1990 and insisting that the appellant should furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt for a total sum of Rs. 90,000.00 , the opposite parties had adopted an "unfair trade practices" and hence the complaint petition is maintainable under the Act. On going through the complaint petition it is seen that there is no mention therein of any unfair trade practices having been adopted by the opposite parties and no relief has been asked for on any such ground. In order that there can be such a satisfactory adjudication of a complaint relating to the alleged adoption of any unfair trade practice, it is absolutely necessary that all the relevant facts which go to make out unfairness of practice on the part of the dealer should be specifically set out in the complaint petition and there must be an allegation that the complainant has consequently suffered loss or damage. When there is no such pleading on the complaint petition and when no such contentionwas also raised before the State Commission, it is now too late for the complainant to urge this point for the first time at the stage of appeal.
(11) The prayers contained in the complaint petition have been extracted by us supra. The reliefs that can be granted by the Redressal Forums constituted under the Act are only those enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 14 (1) of the Act. All the reliefs asked for by the appellant fall outside the ambit and coverage of Clauses (a) to (d) in Section 14(1), and the complaint petition is liable to be rejected on this grourid also. In the light of the foregoing discussion we hold that the State Commission was prefe tly right in its view that the complainant before it was not a 'consumer' as defined in the Act and that the complaint petition filed by him was not maintainable in law. The Order of the State Commission is accordingly confirmed and this appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.