Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs Raj Motors

THE present appellant M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.; is the manufacturer of Jeep Commander which was sold to the complainant the respondent No. 2 by M/s. Raj Motors the dealer. It has not been disputed that the dealer M/s. Raj Motors sold the Jeep for the price of Rs. 1,58,177/- and the full amount have been paid to M/s. Raj Motors by a draft dated 27.6.91. According to the complainant, the dealer had promised to deliver Jeep Car within 2 months, since full price had been recovered by the dealer. M/s. Raj Motors and had given bill as well as receipt in his own name.

AT the time of delivery of the said vehicle the Raj Motors recovered Rs. 23,343/- as an additional amount from the complainant which the complainant had to pay in order to get delivery of the vehicle. The bill is also produced on record which shows that the Raj Motors has recovered Rs. 1,81,590/- that is to say excess amount of Rs. 23,342/-. Having received the vehicle the complainant has given a notice to the General Manager of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited by the Regd. A.D. post complaining that the dealer has recovered Rs. 23,342/- more and demanded die refund of said amount. There is no reply given by the appellant on record. The appellant thereafter filed a complaint to the District Forum both against the dealer as well as the appellant manufacturers.

It appears that me manufacturer has not filed written statement. The dealer has filed the written statement signed by Mr. Sunil P. Shah, die advocate of Raj Motors. A written statement is without verification and no affidavit is produced in support of the same. The Raj Motors has admitted the receipt of Rs. 1,58,177/-. They have further stated in the written statement mat in the receipt given to me complainant we have stated that the price will be taken into consideration prevailing at the time of delivery. They had also produced one invoice of the Company showing, that five Jeep Cars were received by them at the price of Rs. 8,75,093.66 that is to say Rs. 1,75,018/- per Jeep. However, neither the manufacturer nor the dealer has stepped into the witness box nor anyone has filed any affidavit to support this contention. The copy of agreement or receipt containing such term is not produced by Raj Motors. We have no means to know whether such a condition was written in the receipt. The written statement is nothing-but 2 mere piece of paper having not been signed by the Raj Motors. The same is also not verified. It appears that Mr. S.P. Shah who was engaged as an advocate by the Raj Motors, cannot have any personal knowledge regarding the transactions and therefore his averments in the written statement has no evidenciary value. In other words there is total lack of authentic version or evidence. In these circumstances, there was no escape for the members of District Forum except to accept the evidence and averments of the complaint on it''s face value.

THE only question before ''District Forum was whether the opposite party can demand additional price either under the contract or under any provision of statute. THE opposite party has not produced any material to show that they were entitled to additional price. When full price demanded by the contracting party was paid. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity committed by the two members of District Forum who have allowed the claim. Mr. Saiyad the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there was no direct contract between the complainant and the appellant, so the Company is not bound by the contract made by their dealer. In the instant case there is no material to show that the. manufacturer is bound by the act of his dealer. The invoice signed by the manufacturer is in the name of the dealer who has paid the money for five Jeeps. Receipts is given by dealer, draft is in the name of dealer. In this circumstances, we cannot hold manufacturer liable for the excess price recovered by his dealer.

SECTION 2(1)(j) defines the word ''trader'' which includes manufacturer also., but to our opinion a manufacturer would be liable for the defect, if there is any, in the vehicle but if the dealer has recovered excess price it will be his own act. We shall have therefore, to accept the appeal of the appellant so far his liability for excess amount is concerned. The opposite party No. 1 the appellant has not filed any appeal and, therefore, the order of District Forum against has become final. Mr. Saiyad is not asking for any relief for the dealer, because he is not representing him. We have perused the judgment given by the President and separate majority judgment by members. Present appeal is filed by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd; the manufacturers. There is no manufacturing defect hence appellant is not liable for the excess amount recovered by dealer. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The majority decision of the District Forum holding that the appellant manufacturer liable for the excess price is set aside So far the order against the M/s Raj Motors the opposite party No. 1 (Respondent No. 1 herein) passed by the majority is confirmed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to the cost. Appeal allowed.