DEEPAK K RAMAN Vs. MARUTI UDYOG LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30.01.2004 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai ( in short, the State Commission) in complaint case No.68 of 1997. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant herein leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The complaint before the State Commission was filed by the appellant with the averments and allegations that it had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Esteem LX car manufactured by M/s Maruti Udyog Limited through its dealer, Sah and Sanghi Auto Agencies Pvt. Ltd. on 30.03.1996 for a total price of Rs.4,95,036/-. The car was to be used by Mr. Deepak K. Raman, partner of the appellant-firm. After few months of the purchase of the car, the glass of the right front door of the car slipped, which was repaired by respondent No.2 at a cost of Rs.640/-, though the car was under warranty. The complainant learnt that the car in question, which was sold to him by respondents No.1 and 2, was an accidented vehicle and it was extensively repaired and patching work was done at the workshop of respondent No.2 before it was sold to the complainant. The complainant represented to the respondents in that behalf and also engaged an investigator, who on verification, submitted a report that the vehicle alongwith certain other vehicles had met with accident and got damaged while in transit from the manufacturers factory to the dealer premises in Mumbai. Several parts of the vehicle in question were replaced and the vehicle was extensively repaired and thereafter passed on to the complainant as a brand new vehicle. The complainant served a notice upon the manufacturer and the dealer for replacement of the car or to pay damages but without any consequence. The complaint was then filed claiming a total compensation of Rs.10,48,834.04. The complaint was resisted by the manufacturer-Maruti Udyog Limited denying the allegations in the complaint and any liability to pay any damage. It was, however, sought to be explained that it had sold the vehicle in question alongwith other vehicle to the dealer and it was the latters responsibility to in turn sell the vehicle to the purchaser. The opposite party No.2 also denied the allegations and any liability to pay the amount as claimed by the complainant or any other amount as compensation. The State Commission, on consideration of the respective pleas and the material brought on record, however, returned a finding that the complainant had failed to establish its case firstly on the ground that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant as a commercial entity and no cogent evidence was led to show that the vehicle was meant for the use of Mr. Deepak K. Raman, partner of the firm. Yet another ground for unsuiting the complaint was that the complainant had failed to file any affidavit in order to support the averments and allegations made in the complaint. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of his complaint, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Vikas Mohanty, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mr. R. C. Mishra, learned counsel representing respondent No.3 but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondents No.1 and 2 as none appeared for them at the time of hearing of the appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the order of the State Commission, primarily on the ground that the findings of the State Commission, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the complaint, were based on a wholly incorrect and improper appreciation of the evidence and material on record and is also not in consonance with the settled legal position. In this connection, the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the vehicle in question was purchased in the name of the complainant-Asha Garments, a partnership firm, it was duly established on record that the vehicle in question was purchased for the use of Mr. Deepak K. Raman, partner of the firm and, therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question was purchased for any commercial purpose. In our view also, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission has grossly erred in reaching the finding that the vehicle having been purchased by the partnership firm was so purchased for commercial use. Merely because it has been purchased by a partnership firm, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question was purchased for any commercial purpose because it was neither intended to be resold with a view to earning any profit, etc. nor for running it as a commercial transport. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the said finding of the State Commission.