Maruti Udyog Limited vs BRIJINDER KUMAR ARORA

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31.12.2000 passed by the DF whereby the DF has directed the appellants manufacturers of Maruti Udyog who were O.Ps. 2 and 3 in the complaint to make payment of Rs. 12,410.00 with 9% interest from the date of delivery till the liquidation to the respondent/complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- as damages including litigation expenses.

FACTS barely needed for the disposal of this case are that present appellants who are manufacturers were opposite parties 2 and 3 in the complaint. Respondent No. 2 M/s. Highland Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. who was O.P. No. 1 in the complaint admittedly made an advertisement in Daily Excelsior on 19.9.1999 inviting the booking of Maruti Omni upto 30.9.1999 and to avail the gift cheque scheme, in case the whole money is paid till 30th September, 1999. Complainant was lured by the Gift/Cheque scheme offered by the O.P./respondent so he deposited the full cost amounting to Rs. 1,75,883.00 of Maruti Omni on 22.9.1999 much before the 30th September, 1999 last date shown by the O.P. No. 1. The delivery according to the advertisement was to be made on 30.9.1999 but it was delayed. O.P. sent a letter dated 5.10.1999 to the respondent/complainant informing him that the delivery of the Maruti Omni will be delayed by one or two days without assigning any reason. The delivery was ultimately made on 12.10.1999. On 9.10.1999 price of the vehicle was escalated. The moment the price was escalated by Rs. 6,855/- and it is alleged that the complainant was given a ring on 12.10.1999 to deposit the escalated price and take the delivery. Complainant/respondent under compulsion deposited the escalated price under protest and took the delivery of the car. He approached the DF with the prayer that the appellant be asked to refund the escalated price amount plus gift/cheque scheme of Rs. 5,555/-. DF noticed the appellants/O.Ps. Present appellant who were opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 were also noticed. They did not choose to file their written version so their right of filing written version was closed but at a later stage they appeared through their learned Counsel. Respondent No. 2 in the appeal who was O.P. No. 1 in the complaint contested the case. Evidence was recorded. The impugned order was passed by the DF against the appellants.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Appellants have agitated before us that there is no privity of contract between the present appellants and the respondent/complainant. Secondly they have referred case law to the fact that in case there is price escalation of Maruti Vehicles before the delivery of the vehicle the price is to be paid by the purchaser which is prevalent on the date of delivery. He has referred to case titled Kishori Sham Gupta v. M/s. Alfa Automobile and Another, reported as III (1992) CPJ page 303, decided by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur and reported judgment of Gujarat Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Appeal No. 59 of 1993 with title Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Sameer Desai and Another.

WE have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced. WE are not convinced by such arguments. It is an admitted fact that present appellants are the proprietors of Maruti Omni Corporation and respondent No. 2 who was O.P. No. 1 was a dealer of the proprietors in Jammu through whom the Maruti Vehicles were booked and delivered. Even respondent No. 2 who is O.P. No. 1 also in his affidavit has categorically stated that the advertisement which he has made offering gift/cheque scheme was made on the instructions of present appellants proprietors. According to him it is the present appellants who offered a gift/cheque scheme to the customers He has admitted the advertisement and has contended that he is only a dealer serving the cause of proprietors. This plea has not been contested by the present appellants. They have not filed any written version before the DF, though they were served with the notice along with copy of complaint. For these reasons, therefore, the evidence of the complainant which is supported by respondent No. 2 dealer remains unrebutted to the fact that present respondents are proprietors on whose behalf dealer was doing the job as their AGENT, so the principal is always held responsible for the acts of their AGENTS. Secondly, we have gone through both the cases on which the appellants have relied. It is a fact in both the judgments purchaser/complainant was held liable to pay the escalated price because he has accepted the terms of contract in which it was squarely written that the purchaser will be liable to pay the price prevalent on the date of delivery which is not the position here. The present case differs on two counts. No. 1, in the present case in the advertisement notice itself appellants offered a gift/cheque scheme of Rs. 5,555/- for those customers who booked the vehicles by depositing the full price on or before 30th September, 1999. This is an open offer. It is this offer on which the respondent/complainant was lured and he deposited the full price before the dead line date of 30th September, 1999. This offer was final to the effect that this was accepted by the respondent/complainant. That the customer who paid the full cost before 30th September, 1999 was entitled to gift/cheque scheme and was not liable to pay the escalated price. Not only this from the conduct of the appellants it is obvious that they delayed the delivery wilfully in order to extract the esclated price and to deprive the customer from the gift/cheque scheme. Delivery of the vehicle was to be made on 30th Sept. 1999. It was not done and on 5.10.1999 respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the complainant respondent No. 1 to wait for one or two days for delivery of the vehicle but even then it was not delivered. It transpires that the escalated price was in offing. They have deliberately waited till 9th when the price was esclated and informed the complainant after the escalation to take the delivery after paying the escalated price. By doing this malpractice they not only obtained esclated price but deprived the complainant from the gift/cheque scheme also.

WE have gone through Clause of the contract on which present appellants rely. According to them complainant has signed the contract and he has agreed to pay the price prevalent on the date of delivery. WE quote this Clause 4 as under: "4. Price prevailing at the time of invoicing of vehicle from Maruti Udyog Limited to the dealer will be applicable." But this cause cannot be read in isolation of Clause 3. Clause 3 says that the dealer will not be responsible for any delay in the delivery of vehicle due to unforeseen circumstances. Here in this case no unforeseen circumstance has either been pleaded or have been brought on record by the appellants by way of evidence. There is not an iota of evidence on record that for unforeseen reasons delivery of vehicle was not made in time. Instead it is amply proved that the company had thrown a gift/cheque scheme for those who deposited the principal amount before a certain date. They were bound by this gift/cheque scheme to give the vehicles to those who have paid the full amount which was the cut-off date. Here in this case it is transparent that the delivery was not deliberately made till 30th and thereafter also on 5.10.1999 time of one or two days again was asked by the said Corporation to deliver the vehicle and it was not delivered till 12th when the price had escalated. This can be considered purely as unfair trade practice not only to obtain the escalated price but to deny the benefit of gift/cheque scheme. For these reasons, therefore, we are convinced that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and it does not warrant any interference from this Commission. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.