Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President; Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav,
Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha, Dr. (Mrs.) R. Thamarajakshi & Mr. S.P. Bagla, Members
FAIRDEAL MARWAR GARAGES PVT. LTD.—Appellants
versus
NATIONAL CENTRE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS & ENVIRONMENTS & ANR.—Respondents
AND
D.S. SARMA—Appellant
versus
FAIRDEAL MARWAR GARAGES PVT. LTD. & ANR.—Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 203 & 246 of 1995—Decided on 21.6.1996

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants in FA 203/95 & Respondent No. 1 in FA No. 246/95:Mr. B.S. Banthia, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 in FA 203/95: Nemo.
For the Appellant in FA 246/ 95 :Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 in both the Appeals:Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv. & Mr. Abhijit Sengupta & Ms. Punita Singh, Advocates.

The dealer is liable for deficiency in service if the dealer fails to deliver the goods to the buyer at the agreed place of delivery.

Headnote:
SALE OF GOODS - HIRING OF SERVICE - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - LIABILITY OF DEALER - REPAIR OF ACCIDENTED VEHICLE - PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION - INTEREST - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986, SECTION 2(1)(g).
Fact of the Case:

The complainant booked a Maruti 800 Handicapped Control Car from the dealer of the manufacturer. The dealer obtained the delivery of the car from the manufacturer and invoiced it in the name of the complainant. The complainant obtained insurance cover for the car. While the car was being brought from the manufacturer's factory to the dealer's showroom, it met with an accident. The dealer offered three options to the complainant, but the complainant did not exercise any of those options. The complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the dealer.
Finding of the Court:

The State Commission held that the property in the car passed to the complainant when it was delivered by the manufacturer to the dealer on behalf of the complainant. The State Commission also held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the dealer in failure to deliver the car to the complainant at the agreed place of delivery. The State Commission directed the dealer to repair the car and deliver it to the complainant, or to pay the complainant the price of the car along with interest and compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the property in the car passed to the complainant when it was delivered by the manufacturer to the dealer on behalf of the complainant? 2. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the dealer in failure to deliver the car to the complainant at the agreed place of delivery?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The property in the goods passes to the buyer when the seller delivers the goods to the carrier for the purpose of transmission to the buyer. 2. There is deficiency in service on the part of the dealer if the dealer fails to deliver the goods to the buyer at the agreed place of delivery.
Final Decision: The National Commission partly allowed the dealer's appeal and modified the order of the State Commission. The National Commission directed the dealer to pay the complainant the price of the car along with interest and compensation. The National Commission dismissed the complainant's cross-appeal.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha, Member—First Appeal No. 203 of 1995 is by M/s. Fairdeal Marwar Garages, Bhopal, 1st opposite party before the State Commission against National Centre for Human Settlements and Environment on behalf of Shri D.S. Sharma, the complainant before the State Commission and M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. First Appeal No. 256 /95 is by D.S. Sharma, on whose behalf the complaint was filed by National Centre for Human Settlements and Environments. These two appeals are directed against the Order dated 6.2.95 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Commission at Bhopal allowing the complaint and granting reliefs. The parties are being referred to as they were before State Commission.

2. The facts as found by the State Commission are these. The opposite party No. 1 is an authorised dealer at Bhopal of the opposite party No. 2 which was also manufacturing Maruti 800 Handicapped Control Car-TRD model. The complainant by making an initial deposit of Rs. 10,000/- made a booking for handicapped control car. The booking was accepted by the opposite party No. 1 by its letter dated 19.7.91 of Maruti 800 Handicapped Control Car of model TRD, delivery ex-factory Gurgaon with a total cost of Rs. 1,33,178.81. The cost of the said car was, however, revised and proforma invoice dated 6.9.91 for Rs. 1,69,609.81 was issued by the opposite party No. 1. The complainant had already deposited Rs. 10,000/- at the time of booking and made the balance payment of Rs. 1,59,609.81 by demand draft dated 24.12.91 favouring opposite party No. 2 payable at Delhi. The first opposite party obtained the delivery of the said car at Gurgaon from the second opposite party and invoiced it in the name of the complainant showing the price as Rs. 1,70,886.73 and after adjusting Rs. 1,69,609.81 already paid to opposite party No. 2, indicated the balance of Rs. 1,276.32 and called upon the complainant to get the car insured so that it could be brought to Bhopal for delivery to the complainant. The complainant, Shri D.S. Sharma obtained from United India Insurance Company Ltd., insurance cover for Rs. 1,61,000/- for the said car effective from 28.4.92 (5.15. p.m.) till 27. 4. 93 in his name.

3. The said car was being brought by an employee of the first opposite party from Gurgaon to Bhopal vide Indore and it met with an accident en route on 26.7.92. There was some correspondence between the parties to which reference is unnecessary. Ultithately the first opposite party wrote a letter dated 8.1.93 to the following effect :

‘Please refer to our earlier communication vide our reference No. FMG/IND/92-93/ 1996 dated 17.11.92.

1. As a special case Maruti Udyog Ltd. have agreed to assemble a new vehicle for you and will give you the same at current existing prices. This will be subject to the following :

(a) Present vehicle will be repaired under your insurance and will be sold to new customer.

(b) Your will have no lien on the present vehicle and interest will be paid to you till the date of billing of your earlier vehicle from Maruti Udyog Ltd.

2 Your existing vehicle can be repaired under your insurance policy and vehicle can be made fully road-worthy as confirmed by New India Sr. Surveyor, Regional Manager of Maruti Udyog Ltd., Regional Service Representative of Maruti Udyog Ltd., who are the most competent technical persons in the matter.

3. Refund of payment to you alongwith the interest till the date of billing.

We are sending herewith this letter by registered A/D to you since we find you have been keeping mum on our letter.

We would humbly submit to you to please clear options which you want out of the above-mentioned.

Thanking You”.

The complainant did not exercise any of the options and ultithately filed the complaint through National Centre for Human Settlements and Environments, a voluntary Consumer Association registered under the MP Societies Registration Act, 1973.

4. On being noticed the opposite parties filed their respective versions before the State Commi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

The dealer is liable for deficiency in service if the dealer fails to deliver the goods to the buyer at the agreed place of delivery.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis