Maruti Udyog & Cargo Motors to refund full price of car

If the dealer delivers your vehicle to you without an RTO registration number, don't accept it. If you do, and if the vehicle is damaged while it is being driven for registration, the manufacturers and the dealer would try to absolve themselves of any responsibility. Sujata V. Sur, Ahmedabad, had to fight it out.

Sujata had purchased on ICICI Bank loan a new Wagon R from Cargo Motors (Guj) Private Limited, a dealer in Maruti in Ahmedabad. She paid Rs.3,94,662, including RTO tax, insurance, octroi, registration charges, municipal tax, etc., on 25 September 2004. The car was delivered at her residence on Saturday 16 October without any temporary registration number but only with the trade plate number GJ-1-EC-538. The dealer promised to collect the car for 'RTO passing' and registration on Monday 18 October. The RTO charges of Rs.1,800 had been paid by Sujata earlier.

The Wagon R was collected on 20 October from Sujata's residence by a representative of the dealer for 'RTO passing'. On the way to the RTO, the car met with an accident. Iron rods being carried in a cycle-rickshaw had fallen on the road that lightly dashed the side of the car. The representative informed Sujata of the accident on phone and forced her to accept the damaged car.

She refused as she had paid for a new car. Her repeated reminders evoked no response. With the help of Consumer Education Research and Society (CERS), she filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the Forum, Ahmedabad City, for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and prayed for alternative relief, i.e. replacement of the car or refund.

Maruti Udyog and Cargo Motors contended that it was not a consumer complaint and that once the vehicle had been delivered, it became the duty of the consumer to get it registered with the RTO and obtain a temporary or permanent registration number. They also denied any liability to refund the amount or repair the vehicle free of cost in such a case where it had met with an accident on the way to RTO for registration. Maruti and Cargo also alleged that this complaint did not constitute a consumer dispute at all and was devoid of any merits. The service provided to Sujata was on her request and as a gesture of goodwill. Moreover, the negligence was not on the part of the representative of the dealer who drove the car at the time of accident.

The Forum granted an interim relief to Sujata on 24 August 2005 by ordering the dealer to deliver the damaged car after repairs (free of cost) to her.

The Forum decided that the delivery of the car to Sujata without a temporary registration number by the holder of the trade certificate (here, Cargo Motors) was in contravention of Rule 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1989. Cargo Motors contended to have delivered the vehicle under extraordinary circumstances but could not substantiate it to the Forum. Moreover, the Forum held that sympathy is not above law and law cannot be violated in the veil of extraordinary circumstances.

The Forum held that in the light of the Indian Contract Act and the precedent referred to by the National Commission in Ashoke Khan v/s Abdul Karim and others in 2006, it cannot be said that agent or dealer is not jointly and severally liable for the defects in the machine as the contract is through the dealer though the liability for the manufacturing defects is to be borne by the manufacturer. The Forum also strongly objected to the contradictions in its own statements by Cargo Motors which on one hand claimed that the temporary 'RTO passing' was awaited and on the other hand said that the temporary 'passing' number was allotted to Sujata.

The Forum, holding that the complainant had the privity of contract with all the opponents, partly allowed the complaint and ordered Maruti Udyog and Cargo Motors to jointly pay Rs.3,94,662 (the full price of the car, including other expenses like RTO, municipal charges, etc.) to Sujata within two months from the date of the order. Since the car was in the possession of Sujata till date, no interest would be paid to her on the amount and the car shall be returned on payment simultaneously, the Forum ordered. The Forum also ordered Maruti Udyog and Cargo Motors to pay Rs. 2000 towards cost to Sujata.

The Forum comprised Mr. C. A. Sejpal, president, and Mrs. Hemkalaben N. Shah, member. 

Sourced From: INSIGHT