IMPORTANT POINT
Dealer is bound to deliver defect-free car to buyer.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeals No. 1386/2007 and 259/2008, vide which, the order dated 13.09.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad in Consumer Complaint No. 309/2005, filed by the present respondent No. 2 was modified.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant Ms. Sujata Vidhyut Sur purchased a new Wagon-R car by taking loan from the ICICI Bank from the petitioner/opposite party (OP-3) Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., which was the dealer of the manufacturer Maruti Udyog Ltd., arrayed as OPs No. 1 and 2 in the consumer complaint. The complaint has been filed by the said Ms. Sujata Vidhyut Sur and the Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS), which is a charitable trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It has been stated in the consumer complaint that the said car was delivered at the residence of Ms. Sujata Vidhyut Sur on 16.10.2004 without any temporary registration number, but only with their trade certificate number. The dealer promised to collect the car from the complainant on 18.10.2004 for registration from the Regional Transport Officer. They also collected a sum of Rs. 1,800/- from the complainant No. 2 on 16.10.2004 for the said purpose. However, the car was collected by their representative Anand Thakur on 20.10.2004 for taking it to the R.T.O. The said car is reported to have met with an accident on way to the R.T.O. office. It is alleged that the said Anand Thakur and one more person Sulay Shah came to the residence of the complainant without the car, which was kept at their showroom and tried to force her to accept the damaged car which could be repaired by them. However, the complainant refused to take the damaged car, saying that she had made payment to the OP-3 for a new car. Since the matter could not be resolved, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs. 3,94,662/- as the purchase price and other ancillary expenses incurred by the complainant along with 12% interest from the date of payment to the OPs and a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost. It was alleged in the complaint that under Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the holder of a trade certificate could not deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration, whether temporary or permanent.

3. The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a written reply before the District Forum in which, they admitted that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant No. 2 on 16.10.2004 at her request and in good faith under trade certificate No. GJ-1-TC-538, and the temporary registration number was awaited and this facility was given to complainant No. 2 in extraordinary circumstances. It was further stated that the accident had occurred due to the mistake of a cycle rickshaw, which was carrying iron rods and the said iron rods dashed with the car from the side. The OP stated that the complainant was not entitled to get the value of the car from them and there was no cause of action to file the complaint as there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4. The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 3,94,662/- to the complainant No. 2 along with Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation vide their order dated 13.09.2007. Being aggrieved against the said order, two appeals were filed before the State Commission, one by the OP-3, dealer and the other by the manufacturer, OPs-1 and 2. Vide impugned order dated 30.11.2010, the appeal filed by the manufacturer M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. was all