In the absence of privity of contract, the second and third opposite parties cannot be held responsible for the irregularity committed by the dealer, and thus, cannot be directed to pay or return the amount received and benefited by the first opposite party.

ORDER

M. Thanikachalam, President - The complainants having obtained an order in O.P. 1/98 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore, as prayed against first opposite party, not satisfied, preferred this appeal, to have the relief against the second and third opposite parties also.

2. The second complainant obtained a loan from the first complainant for the purchase of a new Hindustan Ambassador Nova Diesel Car, delivered the cheque for Rs. 3,32,640 dated 27.3.1997, drawn in favour of the first opposite party, who was the dealer of second and third opposite parties-manufacturer of the car. Though the first and second opposite parties assured for the early delivery of the car, failed to do so, despite the fact, the first opposite party had collected from the complainant an additional sum of Rs. 7,800. Despite registered notice and many demands, the opposite parties not only failed to deliver the car, but also failed to return the amount, thereby, they have caused mental agony by their deficiency in service, for which, they are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000. In view of the default committed by the opposite parties, first and second opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,40,440 with interest thereon at 24% per annum, in addition, the opposite parties to pay a sum Rs. 50,000 as compensation, apart from Rs. 10,000 for expenses. Hence, the claim.

3. The second and third opposite parties, in their lengthy written version have stated, that the complainants are not consumers and, therefore, the Forum has no jurisdiction, that the case is barred by limitation, hit by mis-joinder of parties, that first opposite party being the dealer, the relationship was that of principal to principal basis and, therefore, for the deficiency or any mistake committed by the first opposite party, other opposite parties are not answerable, since they are not an agent, that there is no contract or any connection between the complainant and the opposite parties and this being the position, they are not answerable for any claim, that when they came to know about the misconduct of the first opposite party, they have terminated the dealership, that the dealer was dealing and selling the car independently and as such, there was no privity of contract of any kind between these opposite parties and the complainant which further follows there is no question of deficiency in service or service to be rendered and in this view also, the Forum has no jurisdiction and that the other averments are denied, consequentially praying for the dismissal of the case.

4. The District Forum, considering the rival contentions of the parties, the relationship between them, as proved and admitted as well, as the non-payment of any amount by the second complainant to the second and third opposite parties, came to the conclusion, that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the second and third opposite parties and in this view, they are not answerable for the claims raised by the complainants. It has further concluded that the first opposite party alone having received the amount directly, answerable to the claim of the complainants. Thus, taking the decision, directed the first opposite party alone to pay a sum of Rs. 3,40,440 with interest thereon with cost, dismissing the claim against the second and third opposite parties, thereby, causing grievance to the complainants, resulting this appeal.

5. As seen from the prayer column in the complaint, under (a), direction is sought for against the first and second opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 3,40,440 with interest thereon and under Clauses (b), (c) and (d), directions are sought for against the opposite parties, probably against all, for a sum of Rs. 50,000, Rs. 10,0000 and Rs. 5,000 under three categories. Thus, it is seen, no claim was made in respect of the actual amount paid by the complainant to first opposite party against the third opp