GEETA RANI Vs. SONALI AUTO (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition No. 3807 of 2017 challenges the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna ('State Commission') order dtd. 22/9/2017 dismissing FA No.335 of 2016 and upholding the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna ('District Commission') dtd. 31/8/2016 allowing the Complaint of the Petitioner/Complainant directing the OPs to refund the extra amount of Rs.10,776.00 paid by the complainant, pay compensation of Rs.50,000.00 and to pay Rs.10,000.00as litigation costs.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/Complainant, are that the Complainant No. 1 (an insurance agent) and Complainant No. 2 (her daughter-in-law), jointly approached the United Bank of India, Usri Branch for loan to purchase a Mahindra Xylo vehicle. The complainants engaged Opposite Party (OP) No.1 (an authorized dealer of OP-2, the manufacturer) for the vehicle purchase. On 15/3/2012, OP-1 issued a quotation. Subsequently, the loan was sanctioned by the bank, and the complainants provided a demand draft of Rs.7,00,000.00 to cover the vehicle's cost as per the quotation. However, they were asked to pay an additional Rs.14,400,.00 comprising Rs.3,624.00 as the balance and Rs.10,776.00 due to a 2% hike in excise duty, which was only applicable from 1/4/2012. This amount was paid, and a receipt was issued. The vehicle was delivered on 19/3/2012, with a temporary registration number, as acknowledged in the delivery note dated the same day. However, OP-1 failed to provide the sale letter and other required documents for permanent registration with the DTO, Patna. Despite repeated requests and a legal notice dtd. 26/3/2012, the required documents were not provided, rendering the vehicle unusable, causing mental harassment and inconvenience to them. Being aggrieved, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission.

(3.) In the written statement before the District Forum, OP-1 denied the allegations, stating that the delay in providing the original documents was due to non-receipt from OP-2, the manufacturer. The complainants were requested either to return the vehicle within 3 days for registration or to accept a replacement vehicle by paying the applicable excise duty and the price difference. The OPs were always willing to resolve the issue, including replacing the vehicle if the complainants agreed to pay the additional costs. OP-2, in their written statement, asserted that the relationship between OP-1(dealer) and OP-2 (manufacturer) is that of principal to principal, and the dealer is not their agent. The complainants are not direct consumers of OP-2, as the vehicle was purchased from the dealer. There is no privity of contract between the complainants and OP-2, and hence, the complainants cannot claim any relief against them.