SANJAY BAFNA Vs. VIJAY P AHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.8.95 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State at Bombay in Appeal No. 655/94 by which the appeal filed by the present revision petitioner was dismissed. The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass. Briefly stated the facts are that the present respondent-Dr. Vijay P. Aher, Managing Director of Shri Samarth Ceramic Industries Pvt. Ltd. had filed a complaint arraying present petitioner as opposite party No. 1 and Maruti Udyog Ltd. as opposite party No. 2 before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik opposite party No. 1 is the dealer in vehicles manufactured by Maruti Udyog Ltd. The case of the complainant is that he wanted to purchase a Maruit van for his business and therefore he contacted opposite party No. 1 who suggested Maruti Carry Van for his business. On persuasion by opposite party No. 1 the complainant purchased a Maruty Carry Van against the price of Rs. 1,61,293/- on 27.2.93. The complainant later on found that the Carry Van had been earlier sold to some other person who used it for some days and returned it to the dealer who resold it to the complainant. Therefore the complainant prayed for change of the vehicle and also prayed for various sums as compensation for loss in business, compensation for medical expenses, for physical and mental agony and other items totalling Rs. 1,62,200/-.

(2.) Opposite Party No. 1 in its counter explained the circumstances in which temporary RTO registration Number was obtained in the name of Shri Pingale who after examination of the vehicle refused to purchase it. It was also pleaded that the complainant is using the vehicle since 27.2.93 and only to evade payment of the balance amount of sale price he has filed this complaint. It may be mentioned here that the complainant had issued one post dated cheque for Rs. 33,293/- towards the balance price of the vehicle but the same since been dishonoured.

(3.) Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. Maruti Udyog Ltd. took preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint was not maintainable as the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for business purposes. It was also pleaded that the transaction of sale was between the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 and there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering opposite party. It was further averred that the complainant has not alleged any unfair trade practice resulting loss to him or that the goods suffer from one or more defects or there is any deficiency in the service.