PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. TELCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) before the District Forum, Bikaner. It was registered as Complaint No. B163/90 vide order dated 20.7.90; That complaint was returned to the complainant. The complainant has filed this complaint before the State Commission. The complainant alleged that the purchased a truck from opposite party No.3 on 8.9.89. Opposite party No.3 is the authorised dealer of opposite parties No.1 and 2. Its chasis No. was 3440733 23147 and engine No. was 692 D. O.133-2804. It was purchased vide bill No.2269 dated 8.9.89 for Rs.3,l0,926/-. Its registration No. is RJ 0711040. The complainant has alleged that he purchased the truck for his own use. The complainant alleged that the truck was purchased after taking loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Rajasthan Bank, Kot Gate Branch, Bikaner. Opposite party No.3 had given the guarantee of the truck for 12 months. The guarantee provided that if there would be any defects in the truck, they will be removed/rectified free of charge and the defective parts will be replaced. Opposite party No.3 also undertook that if there would be a defect of quality or manufacturing then a new engine and chassis will be changed.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that the truck became unserviceable on May 1,1990 at Hyderabad and information about this was given through telephone by the complainant to opposite party No.3. It is said that opposite party No.3 told that the truck maybe got checked at Hyderabad from the authorised dealer of the company. The complainant went to the authorised dealer of the company M/s. B. Sheshagiri Rao Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Ashok Market, Hyderabad and got the vehicle checked there. The dealer told that some sound comes from the engine and it will take two months time for removing the defects. This information was conveyed by the complainant to opposite party No.3. The truck was made temporarily serviceable in the local market of Hyderabad and the same was brought to Bikaner. The complainant spent a sum of Rs.785/- after reaching at Bikaner on May 11, 90. The truck was left in the workshop of opposite party No.3 and he was informed about the defects. Opposite party No.3 did not answer satisfactorily and did not do the work of repairing the vehcile. The complainant was told that opposite party No.3 will prepare the report of the chassis and send the same to the company but ignored the defects of the Engine. The vehicle was returned to the complainant. The complainant was verbally assured by the Manager of opposite party No.3 that if there is any defect it will be removed but it was not done. According to the complainant, the chamber of the truck broke on May 12,1990 and the information of the same was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.3 told that the vehicle may be brought to the HQ at Bikaner and it would be sent to the workshop. It will be repaired and made serviceable. The complainant brought the vehicle from Rawatsar to Bikaner on May 18,1990 and put the same in the workshop. Opposite party No.3 told that there are defects in the engine and the chassis. It did not give receipt of the same, and the truck remained lying as it is in the workshop of opposite party No.3. The opposite parties did not change the defective truck i. e. , chassis and engine. They did not make the truck serviceable. When the truck was kept in the workshop, the complainant was told that report of technical defects of the vehicle would be got repaired and it will be sent to the company and will manage to get the truck repaired immediately. When this was not done, the complainant sent a registered notice on May 26, 1990. Despite this the truck was not repaired. In breach of the guarantee, opposite party No.3 illegally demanded a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the complainant. The complainant was asked to bring required parts from the market and thereafter the truck would be repaired. Opposite party No.3 is said to have misbehaved with the complainant and also refused to take the application in writing. The complainant was told either to pay Rs.45,000/- in cash or bring half engine assembly otherwise the vehicle will not be repaired and incorrect concocted report against the complainant to opposite parties No.1 and 2 will be sent. The complainant has alleged that the truck is out of service from 18.5.90. It is lying at the workshop of opposite party No.3 and thus he is suffering loss of 1,000/- per day. A sum of Rs.38,815/- was claimed on account of damages. A prayer was made that defective engine and chassis be got changed from the opposite parties and the same be got repaired and be given in good and workable condition to the complainant. A sum of Rs.1,000/- per day on account of damages was also claimed till the vehicle is repaired and given to the complainant.

(3.) Opposite parties No.1 and 2 submitted a joint written statement contesting the complainant on merits as well as on preliminary objections, but it was not taken on record. It was submitted that the complainant had purchased the truck for commercial purpose and, therefore, he is not a consumer under Sec.2 (1) (d) (i) of the Act. An objection regarding jurisdiction was also raised in respect of the answering opposite parties. It was submitted by them that Telco Manufactures diesel trucks and bus chassis with or without cab or body and sells the same and in the ordinary course of business appoints dealers for resale of its vehicles and the chassis within territories described in the respective dealership agreement with the dealers. It was submitted that Telco agrees to sell and deliver vehicles and chassis on principal to principal basis to the respective dealers appointed for different territories. Facts showing that the dealer acted as a principal were stated and reference was made to Clauses 1 (a); 1 (e), 11 (a) and 21 of the dealership agreement. The answering opposite parties submitted that they appointed Standard Motors (opposite party No.3) as their dealer for the district of Bikaner in the State of Rajasthan. According to them the privity of contract was between the complainant and opposite party No.3. It was admitted that on telephonic talk with the zonal service representative of these parties stationed at Jaipur when during the telephone conversation the complainant was informed that the necessary action in the matter would be taken only after receiving the necessary report from opposite party No.3. With respect to other facts, ignorance was pleaded. It was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed as the truck in question was booked and used for commercial purpose. As the version of the case on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 2 was submitted on 16.2.91 and it was not within 30 days from the date of service, it was not taken on record. In this connection order sheet dated 16.2.91 may be seen. No version of the case was also filed on behalf of opposite party No.3.