Sohal Motors Swaraj Mazda Agency vs Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee

THIS revision petition by M/s Sohal Motors, Swaraj Mazda Agency, Amritsar is directed against the order dated 23rd of September, 2010 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short the State Commission) in Revision Petition No. 34 of 2010. Vide the said order, the State Commission has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner herein, which was filed to assail the two orders dated 19th of April, 2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (for short the District Forum) in two separate applications, one filed by the petitioner and the other filed by opposite party no.2 i.e. M/s Swaraj Mazda Limited, the manufacturer. In his application, the petitioner had challenged the entertainability of the complaint on the ground that the same was hopelessly time barred. It had also been stated that the complainant was not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was, however, not elaborated as to how the complainant was not a consumer. In the other application filed by opposite party no.2, the manufacturer, while seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation, an additional plea was raised that they have been unnecessarily arrayed as a party in the complaint and the dispute revolves around only the complainant and the petitioner interse. The District Forum on consideration of the application filed by the petitioner held that the complaint was not barred by limitation. It, however, allowed the application of opposite party no.2, the manufacturer, and agreed to strike off its name from the array of parties, holding that there was no allegation in the entire complaint of any payment made to the opposite party no.2/manufacturer at any point of time nor was there any allegation with regard to any unfair trade practice.

THE petitioner being aggrieved not only by the dismissal of his application but also on account of the District Forum having agreed to delete the manufacturer from the array of opposite parties filed the revision petition before the State Commission. Before the State Commission, as would be evident from the records, the plea of the complaint being barred by limitation was not pressed but the point of the complainant not being a consumer, which had not been elaborated in the application filed before the District Forum, was pressed on the plea that three Swaraj Mazda chassis, for which payments were received by the petitioner, were meant for commercial purposes. THE State Commission in its order has not accepted this plea. On the question of opposite party no.2/manufacturer being deleted from the array of parties, the point was vehemently pressed before the State Commission but the same also has been rejected and that is how the petitioner has again filed this revision petition before this Commission to assail the decision of the State Commission. Shri Subodh Kr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. The record has been perused. The three grounds on which learned counsel has attempted to establish his case for interference of this Commission under the supervisory jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are firstly that the complaint was barred by limitation and secondly that the complainant was not a consumer and lastly that there was no ground for deleting opposite party no.2/manufacturer from the array of opposite parties. Learned counsel has not pressed the point of limitation; understandably because the petitioner had responded to the tender of the complainant with his offer to supply three chassis of the Swaraj Mazda make at Rs.14,43,726/- and his offer had been accepted by the complainant and full payment of the three chassis had been received by him on 18.11.2006. It is the admitted case that till date the said three chassis have not been supplied to the complainant. Thus, there is a continuing cause of action and the question of the complaint being barred by limitation does not arise.

On the question of the complainant not being a consumer, the contention of the learned counsel that the vehicles have been purchased for commercial purposes has been noted only to be rejected as the vehicles have been purchased by the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) for propagation of Sikh religion by their Dharam Parchar Committee and the receipt has been issued by the petitioner in favour of the Secretary, Dharam Parchar Samiti, SGPC. The vehicles have not been purchased for plying on hire or for re-sale and thereby it cannot be said that the orders were placed for commercial purposes. This Commission in the case of the purchase of buses by a school for the conveyance of the school children has taken a view that the said purchases cannot be said to be for commercial purposes. The rejection of the contention by the State Commission, therefore, is quite in order.

FINALLY, on the point of whether the manufacturer/opposite party no.2 should have been permitted to be deleted from the array of opposite parties, the petitioner perhaps cannot take exception to the order passed by the District Forum for the simple reason that at any point of time the complainant had nothing to do with the manufacturer/opposite party no.2. The complainant/respondent no.1 floated a tender inviting response of whosoever wanted to supply the chassis and it was the petitioner who offered to supply the same and his offer was accepted and the payment was also made to him and received by him. The petitioner was bound by the terms of the contract to supply the said chassis and the complainant had nothing to do with the manufacturer. The plea that the petitioner had remitted the amount after deducting his commission to the manufacturer and the manufacturer subsequently defaulted in the supply of the chassis has no connection at all as far as the complainant is concerned, as his deal was only with the dealer, the petitioner. If the petitioner has any dispute, which is evident from the records that the manufacturer had filed a civil suit for recovery against the present petitioner, it would not provide any legal base to the petitioner to take refuge behind the said dispute and not supply the chassis for which he has received the full payment from the complainant. The reliance placed by the petitioner in the cases of Prem Nath Motors Ltd. Vs. Anurag Mittal [2009 (1) CPC 57] and T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. Vs. Dr. Muthuswamy Duraiswamy & Anr. [II (2003) CPJ 176 (NC)], would not help the cause of the petitioner, as the said judgments were passed in different set of facts and circumstances. In the case of Prem Nath Motors Ltd. (supra) the registration amount had been paid by a cheque in the name of M/s Pal Peugeot Ltd., the manufacturer. It was in that circumstance that the Supreme Court had held that the agent cannot be held liable. In the case in hand, the payment has been made in the name of the petitioner and has been received by him. In the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar (supra) the dispute was as to whether the manufacturer and the dealer were jointly liable to refund the booking amount. This Commission only said that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to strike down a condition in the contract between the dealer and the manufacturer and in that background it held that the dealer is not liable for non-refund of booking amount paid to the manufacturer through him. In the present case, as has already been stated, the payment has been received by the petitioner/dealer. Opposite party no.2/manufacturer, therefore, was not a necessary party and there is nothing illegal about the opposite party no.2 being dropped from the array of parties. The fact that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner/dealer and the opposite party no.2/manufacturer is indicative of the motive of the petitioner to somehow rope in opposite party no.2 to serve his interest. The revision petition, therefore, has absolutely no merit and is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.