The judgment establishes the liability of a manufacturer for deficiency in services under the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing the statutory requirement for filing a written statement and affidavit in response to a complaint.

Mr. Justice M.S. Rane, President—We have perused the pleadings filed in the matter herein as also heard the learned Advocates for the parties named above.

(For brevity’s sake hereinafter complainant is referred to as “complainant”, O.P. No. 1 as “Manufacturer” and O.P. No. 2 as “Dealer”).

2. The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in services in the matter of delivery of Matador Van to it by the O.Ps., despite payment of full consideration to them as per their requirements.

Few relevant facts :

3. The complainant is a public Trust constituted for promoting business of small scale in the rural area to provide employment opportunities to weaker section of the society.

4. On 30.10.1996 the complainant placed order for a Matador Van with the Dealer. The manufacturer thereof were the manufacturer. On the same date the complainant paid Rs. 3,19,688/- by cheque drawn in the name of the dealer and the invoice raised by the dealer in the name of the complainant as also receipt passed for the said payment passed by the dealer are respectively shown as Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the complaint. Invoice Exhibit ‘A’ dated 30.10.1996 mentions delivery period as “approximately four to six weeks from the date of invoice”, the date of invoice being 30.10.1996 delivery date will be around 15.12.1996. On 6.12.1996 the dealers sent letter to the complainant Exhibit ‘C’ informing the complainant which we quote, “we shall inform you when the vehicle is ready for delivery and shall endeavour to expedite the delivery and try to deliver you the above vehicle at the earliest”.

5. Probably the complainants were in an urgent need of the vehicle. Therefore, by their letter dated 11.12.1996, they requested for early delivery and reference is also made to discussion in this regard. The said letter is marked as Exhibit ‘D’ to the complaint, to which there is a response from the Dealer dated 22.1.1997 informing the complainant about the ceasing of their dealership/relationship with the Manufacturer. Copy of the said letter has also been endorsed to the Manufacturer. The dealer at the same time have mentioned in the said letter which we quote “we hope they will deliver the vehicle against your order directly or through some other dealer of theirs at the earliest”. It is reasonable to think that the reference “they” appearing in the part of the letter will be undoubtedly to the manufacturer.

6. The complainant then addressed letter dated 3.2.1997 to the manufacturer setting out the factual background of the placement of the order for the vehicle with the dealer, payment and correspondence, etc. Copy thereof was also endorsed to the dealer.

7. The Manufacturer replied to the said letter on 21.2.1997 informing, we quote—

“we wish to inform you that no order with payment from M/s. Cart Mart Pvt. Ltd. Bombay is pending with us for execution. Vehicles supplied have been completed against all such orders received by us.”

It is to be stated that copy of the said letter has not been endorsed to the dealer.

8. In the meantime we notice that the complainant having also addressed a letter to the dealer on 3.2.1997 Exhibit ‘G’ recounting the facts as briefly given above about booking, payment, etc.

9. The dealers have also written a letter dated 24.2.1997 to the complainant with a copy to the manufacturer, since the contents of the said letter are relevant in the context we reproduce the said letter in extenso—

“Your order was accepted by us when our dealership from Bajaj Tempo Ltd., was in force. We have duly forwarded the order to Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vide our letter dated 1.11.1996 and by our letter dated 12.12.1996. We have asked them to duly execute the order, as the dealership agreement has subsequently came to an end. We have duly accounted for your order to M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.

In view of the above Bajaj Tempo Ltd., as the principal is liable and responsible for the due execution of the order.

Kindly, therefore, contact them, we are willing to give all assistan