Nanu Bhai vs MARUTI UDYOG LTD

THIS First Appeal is directed against the order dated 31.3.93 of the State Commission, Delhi dismissing the complaint of the Appellant herein with the finding that the complainant is not a consumer as defined is Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

M /s. Maruti Udyod Ltd. - opposite party No. 1 is the manufacturer of Maruti Cars, including Omni Car and M/s. Competent Automobiles, opposite party No. 2 is a dealer. Opposite party No. 1 decided to boost the sale of Omni Cars at a reduced price during December, 1991 under its Anniversary Scheme. The offer is regard to sale of Omni Car at reduced price was declared and widely advertised in December, 1991. The scheme was limited to 500 bookings or upto 31.12.91 which ever event took place earlier. The complainant contacted opposite party No. 2 who gave a proforma invoice on 3.12.91 for Omni available ex -stock. The price indicated in the proforma invoice was for the Maruti Omni sale under the Anniversary Scheme at reduced price. According to opposite party No. 1 the Anniversary booking figures reached 5000 on 19.12.91 and the said scheme was closed. The complainant booked on 23.12.91 the Omni Car with opposite party No. 2 by making a payment of Rs. 1,45,052/ -. The complainant in his complaint alleged that opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that the Omni Car would be delivered within two weeks as per proforma invoice and that the opposite parties have been negligent and deficient in service and consequently he prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to deliver the Omni Car at the price already paid and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,03,400/ - as compensation for financial loss and injury. The opposite parties in similar averments raised legal objections that to be a consumer a person has to satisfy the requirements of Clause (i) of Section 2(1)(d), that there must have been a transaction of buying of goods for a consideration and that the definition contemplates the pre -existence of a completed transaction of sale and purchase, and the person who has already entered into an agreement for purchase of goods will not fall within the scope of said definition. It js further pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and it does not relate to any defects is the goods supplied or the charging of excessive prices by the trader for the goods supplied. The opposite parties reiterated the terms of scheme that the offer was limited to the first 5000 booking (all India) or upto 31.12.91 whichever is earlier and that the Anniversary booking figures reached 5000 n 19.12.91 and the said scheme was closed on 19.12.91. The payment made by the complainant on 23rd December, 1991 was after the closer of the scheme and thus the complainant was not entitled to be delivered the car at the concessional price. It is pleaded that the complainant booked the vehicle on 23.12.91 as such his booking was not covered under the Anniversary Scheme and so the amount deposited by him was refunded with interest at 12% per annum as per policy of the company and was accepted by the complainant.

THE State Commission after noticing the factual position referred to the decisions of this Commission in M.N. Narsima Reddy v. M.D. Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Ors., II (1991) CPJ 346 (NC) decided on 20.12.90, Maruti UdyogLtd. v. Kodaikanal Township and Ors. decided on 12.10.92, M/s. Modern Automobiles v. Dr. Hari Mohan Swami decided on 7.12.92 and M.K. Garg v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Anr. decided on 22.5.92. This Commission has repeatedly held that the transaction of sale and purchase of goods should have already taken place and the complaint must relate either to any defect from which the goods supplied to the complainant suffer or the charging of excessive price by the trader for the goods supplied. Under Sub -clause (iv) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, a complaint can be filed only if the trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on goods or any package containing goods. The price of the Maruti car has not been fixed by or under any law nor any price is displayed on the car. The complaint does not fall within the definition of the word complaint as defined in the Act and, therefore, the State Commission rightly came to the conclusion that it was not maintainable consistent with the view taken by this Commission in those two cases. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.