The court established the liability of the manufacturer for the dealer's actions based on the relationship of principal to principal, and upheld the complainant's rights under the Consumer Protection Act.

Per Justice G.D. Sharma

1. The complainant namely, Mr. Amit Bakshi filed this complaint on 09.07.2004 with the allegations that he purchased Palio 1.9, ELX, Chassis No. 08051474, Engine No. 0059601 H, grey Colour for fixed price of Rs 4,94,584/-. The complainant has stated that out of the said sale price, an amount of Rs. 1,24,584/- was paid as booking amount in cash to OP no.2 and the balance price amount in the sum of Rs. 3,70,000/- was paid at the time of delivery through J&K Bank Ltd. Shalamar , Jammu. It is further stated that vehicle was delivered to him but unfortunately the sale letter and Form 22 were not given to the complainant by OP no.2 at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered on 05.09.2003 and despite repeated requests the above said documents have not been given to the complainant. It is also alleged that registered notice dated 25.05.2004 was served upon the OPs wherein it was reiterated that despite repeated visits being made, the above stated two required documents were not delivered. The car in question could not be made road worthy because of the lack of the above stated two requisite documents and in their absence the vehicle could not be registered with the competent authority (RTO, Jammu). It is also stated that an amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- was paid from J&K Bank Ltd. Shalamar, Jammu. In para 6 of the complaint it is alleged that recurring loss in business is caused. Interest had been paid to the Financial Institution. The complainant had been facing harassment and humiliation.

Estimated compensation in the amount of Rs. 10 lacs is claimed. The reliefs prayed are:-

(i) Direction to the OPs to issue Form 22 as well as Sale letter of the vehicle.

(ii) Compensation in the amount of Rupees ten lacs.

2. In the written version, OP no. l has stated that he is the manufacturer of the car in question and has no direct knowledge of the business dealings entered by the complainant with OP no.2. That OP no.2 is not their agent but the relation of OP no. l and OP no.2 is that of a principal to principal and to that effect an agreement had been entered into. Clause 1.4 of the agreement has been reproduced which runs:-

It is hereby expressly agreed and acknowledged between the parties hereto that the dealer is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Company in all legal, financial and economic respects and shall carry on the dealer business referred to in this agreement under its own name and on its own account and at its sole risk. The Dealer is in no way the agent or representative of the company and shall not describe or represent itself as such. The dealer has no right or authority to bind the company under any contract or by any representation whatsoever, whether express or implied with any third parties or to assume any obligation express or implied in relation to any third parties on behalf of the company. That OP no.2 always gives delivery of the vehicle after making it road worthy. That the complainant has not made any allegation regarding the inherent manufacturing defect or any deficiency in quality, so, no liability of OP no. l arises. It is only a problem with regard to the sale and purchase of the car in question and relates to the alleged business dealing of OP no.2 with the complainant.

3. OP no.2 in the written version has admitted the receipt of payments of Rs. 3,70,000/- from the complainant but has set up a case of fraud and forgery on the part of the complainant. He has alleged that complainant with malafide intention has shown the price of the car in question at Rs. 4,94,584/- whereas, the actual price is only of Rs. 4,68,009/-. That on the assurance given by the complainant that he would later on make the remaining payment of Rs. 98,009/-, the delivery was made, but he resiled from his promise. That annexure-B colly attached with the complaint is forged and fabricated document. According to him. the complainant in connivance with the concerned Financial Bank has fabricated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document