SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of R.P. Nos. 3186 of 2007, 3187 of 2007 and 3188 of 2007 which arise out of similar orders dated 11.7.2007 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orissa, Cuttack in three appeals arising out three complaints filed by respondent No. 2 in each of these revisions. The District Forum had allowed the complaints by similar orders directing the petitioner/O.P. No. 1 and respondent No. 1/O.P. No. 3 to fit in "HYWA body" by removing "UTKAL body" and hydraulic system in the vehicles purchased by respondent No. 2/complainants and pay certain amount of compensation to them.

(2.) Vehicles were purchased by respondent No. 2 on hire purchase basis through M/s. Magma Leasing Limited - financier. Contention advanced by Mr. B.L. Wali, Adv. whom we have heard on admission is that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in revision petitions inasmuch as the vehicles were purchased by M/s. Magma Leasing Limited-financier. The financier was allowed discount on gound of body being manufactured by UTKAL instead of HYWA by the petitioner. It has been pointed out that the complaints alleging that the bodies of vehicles having not been manufactured by HYWA were filed after about 8 months of the purchase of vehicles and petitioner along with respondent No. 4, thus, could not have been validly ordered to fit in original HYWA body by removing UTKAL body and the Hydraulic system in the vehicles. In R.P. No. 3186 of 2007, which is treated as lead case, the copy of Sales Invoice-cum-delivery challan dated 4.1.2006 issued by the petitioner is placed at page No. 12. Similar Sales Invoice-cum-Delivery Challan are placed on the files of R.P. Nos. 3187 of 2007 and 3188 of 2007. In said invoice against the column of customer's name, the name of respondent No. 2 is mentioned. Name of said M/s. Magma Leasing Limited is mentioned against the column of financier. Details against the column-'New Tata Diesel Vehicle' are given, thus :

(3.) In view of name of respondent No. 2 being mentioned against the name of customer in the said invoice the objection of there being no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 is to be repelled being without any merit. Said Invoice clearly goes to show that the vehicle sold was represented to be having HYWA body by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 alleges that he came to know of the body of the vehicle being UTKAL instead of HYWA make only in August, 2006 before the complaint was made to the petitioner. Time gap between purchase of vehicle and making of complaint by respondent No. 2 was, thus, immaterial. Considering the misrepresentation as made in the said invoice about the body make, the petitioner to defeat the claim of respondent No. 2 cannot be heard to say that some discount was paid to the said Financier on ground of make of the body being different. Fora below had, thus, rightly passed the orders in favour of respondent No. 2 in each revision and against the petitioner and those do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. All the three revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed.