MARUTI UDYOG LTD Vs. K A RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant's case is as follows: The complainant availed of loan and purchased a Maruti Zen car bearing Registration No. TN-07-X-6663 on 7.12.1998 by executing a hire purchase agreement. The complainant has also paid some of the instalments due towards the hire purchase and thus paid in all more than Rs.3 lakhs towards the cost of the vehicle. He has also incurred an additional expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- for periodical service and maintenance of the car. The vehicle was left with the 1st opposite party in good condition on 26.8.2000 for check-up after completion of 10,000 kms. The complainant was surprised to learn that the vehicle met with an accident when it was subject to final inspection and road test. The accident had occurred due to the negligent and defective service of the 1st opposite party. The vehicle has suffered extensive and severe damage. While so, the complainant received a letter from the 1st opposite party calling upon him to collect the vehicle on payment of service charges. The 1st opposite party is duty bound to replace it with a new car instead of repairing and giving the same to the complainant. Hence the 1st opposite party sent a registered letter to the complainant calling upon him to take delivery of the car to which the complainant sent a suitable reply. The car met with a major accident due to the negligent and irresponsible act of the 1st opposite party and, therefore, the complainant demanded replacement of the vehicle. While so, the 1st opposite party again sent a letter dated 16.10.2000 wherein they had admitted that the car met with an accident during the course of final inspection and road test. It is only on the advice given by the 1st opposite party and on the advice of M/s. Union Motors Services Ltd. and the instructions of the 4th opposite party the vehicle was left with M/s. Union Motor Services Ltd. with which the 4th opposite party is connected. The complainant had issued a letter to the 4th opposite party apprising him of the facts and again sent a letter on 23.9.2000 a copy of which was sent to the Managing Director, Assistant Works Manager, Maruti Udyog Ltd. , Chennai. In spite of several requests, no effort has been taken by the opposite parties to send any reply. It is to be pointed out that the complainant had left the vehicle with the 1st opposite party on the advice of the 4th opposite party. The 4th, 3rd and the 1st opposite parties are inter-connected manufacturer, financier and service centres. There is no buyer to purchase the car. The car had become a junk. The complainant thus availed the services of the opposite parties for consideration to be paid. The 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer while the opposite parties 1 and 2 are their agents. The 4th opposite party is the financial organization inter-connected with them. Thus they are liable. The complainant has been deprived of the utility of the car from 26.8.2000. Hence the complainant prays for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the Maruti Zen car with a brand new car or direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and direct them to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, along with interest at 24% p. a. and costs.

(2.) On behalf of the 3rd opposite party, a reply version has been filed. They contended as follows: This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction. The complainant is not a consumer. There is no privity of contract as between the complainant and the 3rd opposite party or as between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. There was no negligence or breach of any condition by the 3rd opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party has nothing to do with the opposite parties 1 and 2. The 3rd opposite party is the manufacturer and the dealings between the 1st opposite party and the 3rd opposite party are as between a dealer and a manufacturer on principal to principal basis. The 1st opposite party is a separate and distinct legal entity. The 3rd opposite party did not receive any legal notice. Hence there was no occasion for them to answer. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are not agents of the 3rd opposite party. Th complainant never hired the services of this opposite party. If the complainant had suffered any loss, it is not due to any act of omission or commission on the part of the 3rd opposite party. There is no cause of action. The 3rd opposite party, therefore, prays that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

(3.) The lower Forum accepted the complaint and directed all the opposite parties to replace the Maruti Zen car with a brand new one or to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and also to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/-.