State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Delhi: In the instant appeal wherein the Commission had to deliberate whether a car manufacturer, can be held liable in the event a car dealer cannot be served with the DCDRC’s order; the Bench of Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J. (President) and JP Agrawal (Member), after considering the facts of the case, held that a car manufacturer cannot be held liable for the omissions or wrongdoing on the part of the dealer.
The complainant upon getting impressed by a lucrative deal on Hyundai Santro car via a newspaper advertisement, approached Respondent 1, who was an authorized dealer of Hyundai and deposited Rs 3.32 Lakhs. Copies of the receipts were given to the complainant.
Respondent 1 assured the complainant that the car would be delivered to him on or before 31-9-2009. The same, however, did not happen and the complainant was told to wait till 10-2-2009.
On 10-2-2009, when the complainant visited to take his car’s delivery, he was shocked to see that Respondent 1’s showroom was shut down. Hence, the complainant filed a police complaint alleging that he was cheated of Rs 3.32 Lakhs by Respondent 1. Furthermore, the complainant approached Respondent 2 (manufacturer) and Respondent 3 (customer relations officer) to complain, wherein he was assured that action would be taken on the matter within 3 working days.
All efforts in vain, the complainant approached the DCDRC seeking delivery of the booked car, interest and compensation of Rs 1 Lakh for mental agony.
The DCDRC upon considering the facts of the case held that the complainant had utterly failed to establish any nexus between himself and Respondents 2 and 3. The DCDRC however held that Respondent 1 could not escape his liability for breach of commitment and directed him refund the booking amount with interest.
Aggrieved with the afore-stated ruling, the complainant approached the SCDRC stating that lack of Respondent 1’s current address prevented the execution of DCDRC’s order. The complainant further stated that since Respondents 2 and 3 have not admitted to the termination of their dealership with Respondent 1, therefore they cannot absolve themselves from liability.
Perusing the matter, the SCDRC relying on relevant precedents of Supreme Court and NCDRC, noted that there was no manufacturer-dealer agreement on record, therefore the Commission assumed that the agreement was based on a principal-to-principal relationship.
The SCDRC further noted that the booking amount paid by the complainant to Respondent 1 was not transferred to the manufacturer i.e., Respondents 2 and 3. Hence, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Respondents 2 and 3; therefore, they cannot be held liable.
With the afore-stated assessment, the SCDRC upheld the decision of DCDRC and the instant appeal was dismissed.
[X v. Suhrit Hyundai, First Appeal No. 101/2015, decided on 2-9-2024]
Order by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Complainant: Kapil Chawla, Advocate
The post appeared first on .