Back
High Court Of Delhi
M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED - Respondent
First Appeal 67 of 1990
Decided On : 12/20/1990
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D) - CONSUMER - DEFINITION - SALE OF GOODS - COMPLETED TRANSACTION - COMPLAINT - MAINTAINABILITY - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES - PLEADING - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a practicing advocate, had booked an order for a Maruti-800 CC car with the dealer. He made a deposit of Rs. 10,000 and was assigned an allotment number. Later, the dealer revised the procedure for purchase of vehicles and required the appellant to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt for a further amount of Rs. 75,000. The appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging that the modification of terms by the dealer was unfair and amounted to an unfair trade practice.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) and that the complaint was not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Act? 2. Whether the complaint was maintainable under the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'consumer' in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act requires a completed transaction of sale and purchase of goods. A person who has merely entered into an agreement for purchase of goods will not fall within the scope of the definition. 2. The complaint did not relate to any defect in the goods supplied or the charging of excessive price by the dealer. It pertained only to the revision of the procedure for booking of vehicles by the dealer. This was a matter pertaining to the agreement for sale and could only be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court. 3. The complaint did not contain any plea for relief on the basis of any unfair trade practice adopted by the dealer. In order to obtain a satisfactory adjudication of a complaint relating to unfair trade practices, all the relevant facts must be specifically set out in the complaint petition and there must be an allegation that the complainant has consequently suffered loss or damage. 4. The reliefs asked for by the appellant fell outside the ambit and coverage of Clauses (a) to (d) in Section 14 (1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE complainant is Consumer Disputes No. 15 of 1990 on the file of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad has come up with this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated June 23,1990 passed by the State Commission dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the act )
( 2 ) THE respondents in the appeal are the Opposite Parti Nos. I to 4 in the complaint petition namely : (1) The Managing Directer, Maruti Udyog Ltd. , New Delhi; (2 ). The Regional Manager (North), Maruti Udyog Ltd. , New Delhi; (3) M/s Mahalakshmi Motors (p) Limited, Begmpet Road, Hyderabad and (4) M/s. The Mitra Agencies, authorised dealers for Maruti Udyog Ltd. , in Hyderabad.
( 3 ) THE complainant Shri M. N. Narasimha Reddy, who is a practicing Advocate in Hyderabad had booked an order for supply and delivery of a Maruti-800 CC car with Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Mahalakshmi Motors (P) Ltd. , Hyderabad. Along with the application for registration of his booking, the complainant had made a deposit of Rs. 10,000. 00 and he was assigned allotment No. 1001-N-04440. By letter dated February 1,1990, the complainant was informed by respondent No. 4 that the car against his allotmenl was due for releasee and calling upon him to obtain a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 15,000. 00 for 91 days or more in his name from New Bank of India, Mahatma Gandhi Road Branch, Secunderabad. The complainant was further informed by that letter that the balance price of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 74,063. 34 was payable on intimation of delivery of the vehicle. In compliance with the requirement specified in that letter, the complainant furnished to the dealer a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 15,000. 00 in his own name on Feburary 22,1990. With effect from February 22,1990, the procedure in regard to purchase of Maruti vehicles was revised by the company and as a consequence the complainant was called upon to furnish a Fixed Deposit Receipt for a further amount of Rs. 75,000. 00 on or before March 7,1990 in accordance with the revised procedure. The complainant felt aggrieved by this modification of terms effected by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. , and filed the complaint before the State Commission seeking in the following reliefs:-
"1. to receive the F. D. R for Rs. 15,000. 00 which was deposited. on 20. 2. 1990, in pursuance of the letter dated 1. 2. 1990, affidavit which is duly notorised on 22. 2. 1990 and the covering letter indicating the choice of colour and procure the order,
2. to forbear from disturbing the seniority of allotment made at the time of booking in the month of October, 1986;
3 to forbear from giving of Maruti CC 800 to any customer below the waiting list of complainant as and when the final payment is made by the complainant; and
4. to award costs of this complaint,"
( 4 ) THE complaint petition was resisted by the Opposite Parties on various grounds. Firstly, it was urged that inasmuch as there had not been any complected transaction of sale or purchase in the instant case, the complainant could not be regarded as a consumer within the meaning of the said expression as defined in the Act. Nextiy, it was contended that none of the reliefs asked for in the complaint petition fell within the scope of Section 14 of the Act and hence the approach made to the State Commission for obtaining those reliefs in proceedings under the Act was clearly misconceived. It was also submitted by the Opposite Parties that under the terms of the agreement for sale the company had reserved to itself the right to modify and alter the procedure relating to the booking and supply of vehicles and since the complainant had agreed to abide by the procedure for purchase as in force from time to time, he can have no legal grievance against the insistence by the company on compliance with the procedure as revised with effect from February 22,19
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
