COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful first and second defendants have taken shelter of this Court by taking the aid of Section 100 CPC and thus have assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned two Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against them. A suit for realization of Rs. 18,004.43 paise has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 who is a Transport Operator and is carrying on his business in the name and style M/s Indersons and Company, at Gopal Bagh, Jabalpur, arraying appellants as defendants No. 1 and 2 respectively and Second respondent as defendant No. 3. According to the plaintiff, first defendant is the authorized dealer of third defendant and second defendant is authorized Body Builders of Tata Diesel Vehicles. Third defendant is manufacturer of Trucks called Tata Diesel Vehicles of different sizes and appointed first defendant as its authorized dealer to sell the vehicles manufactured by it. The second defendant is also the authorized by the manufacturer (Third defendant) to build the body of the trucks on chassis. The plaintiff was desirous to purchase five Tata Diesel Vehicles Model 210-S. E. /36-143 (in short "Model-36") as per the specification of the third defendant and he asked first defendant to give quotation in that regard to Punjab and Sindh Bank, Jabalpur Branch. Accordingly, said defendant sent its quotation dated 09.03.1983 for Rs. 2,65,000/- for each such vehicle to the said Bank. According to the quotation, the first defendant was asked to supply the said five vehicles Model-36 as per the standard specification of third defendant.

(2.) It is the further case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that first defendant was not having five vehicles in stock of the desired Model i. e. Model-36, hence, first defendant impressed upon the plaintiff to purchase two vehicles of Model 1210- S. E. /421-63(in short "Model-42") which was not as per the order of the plaintiff. It has also been pleaded in para 6 of the plaint that plaintiff specifically told first defendant that vehicles are desired by him to be converted and used as Tippers' and also told that he can rely upon the special skill and knowledge of the first defendant in case the body is made by them to be used as Tippers after consulting the manufacturer-third defendant. On this, the first defendant told and advised the plaintiff that second defendant is also an authorized Body Builder and has been approved by the third defendant. The plaintiff hence, accepted the representation of the first defendant and agreed to purchase two vehicles of Model-42 instead of Model-36 and requested first defendant to build up the desired body on the said chassis. According to the plaintiff, he never suspected any foul play and relied on the representation, skill and special knowledge of first defendant as the dealer and second defendant as the authorized Body Builder of the defendant No. 3.

(3.) In para 9 of the plaint it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that all the vehicles purchased are covered under the warranty issued by first defendant on behalf of third defendant and the trucks bodies on all the vehicles were made and fitted by second defendant. In the month of February, 1984 within the tenure of warranty the chassis No. 344, 073 63328 of Model - 42 were found cracked. The plaintiff immediately sent the vehicles to first defendant on 12.12.1984 for replacement of the chasis under the terms of warranty, who rest assured the plaintiff that the management of first defendant would lodge the claim with defendant no. 3 and get the replacement of the chassis done. In the meantime, the first defendant requested to plaintiff to deposit Rs. 16,739.43 so that the new chassis may be supplied in place of the cracked chassis and amount can be refunded as soon as the replacement under the warranty is made by third defendant.