State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dort Ketal Chemicals (India ) Pvt. Ltd. vs Porsche India & Ors & Othrs on 25 July, 2011
Daily Order
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint
Case No. CC/10/84
1. DORT KETAL CHEMICALS ( INDIA ) PVT. LTD.
Mr. Vijay Malpani, Chief
Financial Officer, O/AT 1 DORF KETAL TOWERS, DE MONTE STREET, MARVE
ROAD, MALAD (WEST), MUMBAI - 400 064.
Mumbai
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. PORSCHE INDIA & ORS
DIVISION OF PRECISION CARS INDIA
PVT. LTD., O/AT 401 C POONAM CHAMBERS WORLI MUMBAI
Mumbai
2. Shreyans Motors Pvt.Ltd. Authorised
Dealer of Precision Cars
Office at 13 N S Patkar Marg,
Mumbai-400007
Mumbai
3. Mr.Stan Evans Brand
Manager of Dr Ing.h.c.f.Porsche AG Porscheplatz 1 and Porshe
India
Office at Centre Mumbai, 13 S Patkar Marg,
Mumbai-400 007
Mumbai
4. Dr Ing.h.c.f.Porsche AG
Porscheplatz 1
business at 70435 Stuttgart, Federal Republic of
Germany
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase
PRESIDENT
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Mr. Y.C. Naidu, Advocate
for the Complainant.
Mr. S.A. Gundecha,
Advocate for the Opponents.
ORDER
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member:
Heard both sides. This application is vehemently opposed by contesting Opponent No.s 1,2 and 3 on the ground of relevancy.
This consumer complaint pertains to not about the defect in good but for alleged deficiency in service on the part of the dealer-Opponent No. 1 with whom the vehicle was booked and through whom the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 27.3.2010. It is alleged that the delivery was expected at the most by early of January 2010 but delivery was delayed even though the entire price of the vehicle was already paid and received by the dealer, supra. It is also alleged that the dealer received double payment one through the Complainant and thereafter through the financial institution from whom vehicle loan was obtained by the Complainant. It is alleged that ` 78,55,240/- which were required to be refunded to the Complainant were unnecessarily withheld by the dealer for more than 45 days and hence, there is deficiency in service on part of a dealer and on that account, compensation is claimed.
Opponent No. 1- Porsche India is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is alleged that it has nothing to do with the manufacturer of the car and it is neither agent or authorized agent of the manufacturer of the car i.e. Opponent No.4 against whom the complaint is not admitted. Similarly, it is alleged by the contesting Opponents that the dealing between the Opponent No. 1 company and the dealer (Opponent No.2) are on principle to principle basis. Therefore, that factor is relevant only if deficiency in service is found on the part of the dealer and in that case, whether joint and several liability is to be fastened on Opponent No. 1 or not. Since both the parties i.e. Opponent No. 1 & 2 are before us and looking to the privity of contract between them, the fact if disputed by the Complainant, then the factor of onus of proof on these Opponents to establish the same can be taken into account and it can be decided on the basis of the affidavits in evidence already tendered on their behalf.
As far as Opponent No. 3 is concerned, he is a Brand Manager and he is in the employment of the dealer i.e. Opponent No.2. The position which is reflected from letter of her ( dated 15.7.2008 and also from the affidavit of the Opponent No. 3 dated 6.1.2011). He has no other character or responsibility in terms of alleged deficiency in service.
Under the circumstances, we find no useful purpose would be served except for unnecessarily prolonging the hearing of the complaint if the cross-examination of these witnesses viz. Mr. Ajay Jain, Mr.Vivek Satyani and Mr. Stan Evans is allowed as prayed under this application by the Complainant. Similarly, looking to the interrogatories sought to be served, we find them not necessary or would serve any useful purpose. This is particularly so when it could be seen that the information tried to be solicited through these interrogatories is in respect of the responsibility (or liability) of the manufacturer of car i.e. earstwhile Opponent No. 4 against whom the complaint was not admitted and as such said party is now not before us. Similarly, presence of Opponent No. 4, the manufacturer is not required since as earlier observed, it is not the case of any defective good or defect in the vehicle supplied. This point already dealt with by the Commission while passing the order dated 28.7.2010 and whereby the complaint is admitted only against the Opponent No.s 1,2 and 3.
As per the provision under section 13(2)(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( for the sake of brevity it is referred to as Act), the dispute is to be settled on the basis of evidence laid on affidavit by both the parties. If circumstances so warranted, then only interrogatories to the witnesses whose affidavits are filed may be permitted and if replies to interrogatories found to be abusive, then only in exceptional circumstances, cross-examination may be permitted but such is not the case before us. Under the circumstances, we find this application is devoid of any substance and hence holding accordingly, we pass the following order :
O R D E R The application stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced dated 25th July 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase] PRESIDENT [Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] Judicial Member [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member aab