Maruthi Udhyog Ltd. & Ors. v. V. Lakshmanan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANCrl.O.P.No.3069 of 2002andM.P.No.1607 of 20071.Maruthi Udhyog Ltd., represented by itsManaging DirectorR.S.S.L.N. Bhaskarudu2.R.S.S.L.N. Bhaskarudu.. PetitionersVersusV. Lakshmananrepresented by Power AgentA.M.Kuruvilla.. Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the recordsin C.C.No.5929 of 2001 pending on the file of XIV MetropolitanMagistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the same.For Petitioners : M/s. S.Raghunathan (No appearance)For Respondent : Mr.P.Visveswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)O R D E RThe petitioners have filed the above petition to call for therecords in C.C.No.5929 of 2001 pending on the file of XIVMetropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the same.2.The respondent/complainant has stated as follows:The complainant contended that on seeing an advertisement in thepapers, he approached the third accused for the purchase of a brandnew omni van, white colour. On 22.10.1997, the fifth accused, namelyShibu Matthew, Sales Executive met the complainant and afterdiscussion, it was agreed that the third accused would arrange theloan for the said vehicle from the sixth accused namely M/s. MaruthiCountrywide Auto Financial Services.3.The vehicle was identified by the fifth accused/salesexecutive to be purchased from the first accused, namely M/s. KhivrajMotors Ltd. The complainant was made to believe by the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused, 4th and 5th accused that a brand new vehicle would be providedand loan would be arranged. The complainant paid a sum ofRs.20,000/- to the fifth accused on 24.10.1997. Out of the saidamount, Rs.16,000/- was paid to the first and second accused towardspremium, so that the vehicle could be delivered within 48 hours atthe premises of the complainant. The fifth accused handed overreceipt of Rs.16,000/- towards additional margin money over and abovethe price fixed by accused No.8, namely M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd.Further, the complainant paid Rs.49,550/- to the fifth accusedtowards payment for the new van. On 29.10.1997, a cheque forRs.4,680/- was encashed by the first accused for incident premium ofthe new van. The amount was paid through fifth accused by way ofcheque. Thereafter, the fifty accused remained absent from hisoffice and could not be contacted. Hence, the complainant contactedthe fourth accused, who confirmed that the formalities were over andthe vehicle could be inspected on 31.10.1997 at the premises of thefirst accused. Subsequently, the fifth accused contacted thecomplainant and informed him that the vehicle identified by him is arusted one and hence there was a delay in delivering the vehicle.4.Subsequently, as the fifty accused did not contact him, theP.A on 04.11.1997 went to meet the third accused . The fourthaccused was contacted and refund of the amount so far paid was soughtby the complainant in order to cancel the order of the new van. Thefourth accused represented to the complainant that he had spoken tothe second accused an in unambiguous terms confirmed that there is nocause or concern about the quality of the vehicle and that they haveidentified a brand vehicle in show room condition. The complainantbelieved the fourth accused and agreed for the delivery of the carlatest by 06.11.1997.5.The complainant submits that on 06.11.1997, the P.A holdertook delivery of the van by 7.30 p.m with one key missing. When thiswas informed to the first accused, it was stated that already arequest was made to Maruti for the second key and it will bedelivered to the complainant at the earliest.6.The complainant submits that the registration certificatewas given by the sixth accused only in January 1998 and theregistration number of the vehicle is TN 202187.7.The complainant states that he was using the vehicle and theservices were carried out by the authorised dealers of accused No.8as mentioned in the service manual and warranty conditions. When thecolour of the part of the vehicle faded, the complainant took thevehicle to Union Motors Services, Chennai, authorised dealer ofaccused No.8 and an opinion was sought. M/s. Union Motors Ltd.,issued an official certificate on 17.07.1998 that the alleged brandnew vehicle is a tinkered, repainted and defective one. Thecomplainant was shocked and verified the engine number and chassisnumber and found that it tallied with the registration book engineNo.1553059 and Chassis Number 220235. But to his surprise the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registration book mentioned the colour of the vehicle as harvestgreen. The complainant wanted only a white maruti van and when thebook showed it as harvest green, the complainant grew suspicious andquestioned all accused. Accused No.2 represented that it was aclerical error.8.On further enquiry the complainant found out from UnionMotors Ltd., that the inspection of the vehicle was carried out bythem in the presence of one of the Service Engineers, Mr.M.LakhmiNarayanan of Maruti Udyog Ltd., who was present at their premises atEkkatuthangal, Chennai.9.The complainant referred the matter immediately for anopinion of accused No.8, through their regional office at Chennairegarding the quality and safety of the vehicle. The accused No.8remained quiet without making any commitments inspite of twoinspections carried out by them. The complainant believed that allaccused, with a common intention of sharing a wrongful gain by way ofa fraudulent act, committed breach of trust and cheated him.10.The complainant grew suspicious and verified invoice No.1267dated 31.10.1997 issued by the accused No.1, which shows entries forRs.1,70,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy thousand only) dated29.03.1997 and entry for Rs.25,000/- dated 11.06.1997. Thecomplainant personally reported these discrepancies to the accusedNo.8 as had paid the first amount on 24.10.1997 only, but no replywas received.11.The complainant registered a certificate regarding safety ofthe vehicle but as on date the same was not issued. The non-issuingof the certificate coupled with the back dated entries in the invoiceand certificate of Maruti's official dealer led to the conclusionthat the vehicle is an old one and not of show room condition forwhich a customer is entitled when he buys a new vehicle from the showroom of a dealer of an ISO certified company.12.Two approved dealers of Maruti namely M/s. ABT andM/s.Mahalingam and Sons. accredited value of motor vehicles wereapproached and they also confirmed that the vehicle is a substandardone and not of show room condition. The complainant further statesthat he was cheated and the cost of the new vehicle had beencollected by way of post dated cheque of Bank of Baroda with interestover and above Rs.16,000/- margin money and shared by accused 1 to 9.Accused No.1 and 2 adopted unfair trade practice and extorted moneywhile accused Nos. 4 and 5 induced the complainant by stating thatthe vehicle is a brand new one and delivery of the vehicle will takeplace before 48 hours. In fact, a second hand damaged, repainted,tinkered, repaired and done-up vehicle was supplied by the accused,who also deals in second hand vehicles. The complainant states thataccused 8 and 9 had not complied with conditions of warranty andtheir silence amounts to acceptance of their guilt and allowingaccused No.1 to continue as their dealer inspite of the allegations https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the complainant, with proof, goes to show involvement of accused 8and 9 in the conspiracy.13.The complainant also submits that he is under continuous andsevere stress and also mental agony while travelling by the damagedcar as accused Nos. 8 and 9 inspite of repeated request refused tocertify the credit worthiness contravening the warrant conditions.14.The complainant submits that the sixth and seventh accusedby showing receipt dated 29.03.1997 and 11.06.1997, which was notgiven by the complainant have committed an offence under Section 477-A IPC. The complainant submits that accused Nos. 8 and 9 havecommitted an offence under Section 420 IPC, by not replying or takingany action against the complaint, and have clearly formed aconspiracy in selling old vehicles as new one and ought to bepunished under Section 120(b) of IPC. The complainant submits thatall the accused have connived and that they ought to be punishedunder Section 120(b) of IPC along with other offence mentioned above.15.The cause of action arose at the office of the 3rd, 4th and5th accused, where the transaction, took place at Anna Nagar, Chennai.16.The complainant submits that he has incurred a wrongful lossof Rs.2,05,611/37 plus Rs.16,000/- premium at the hands of theaccused and he ought to be compensated to the tune of Rs.50,000/-towards damages incurred and legal expenses under Section 357 Cr.P.C.The complainant has mentioned six witnesses and furnished a list of13 documents in support of his cases.17.The learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate has perusedcomplaint and the sworn statement of the complainant for power ofattorney and prima facie accepted that a case is made out against A1to A9 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. and has taken it on his fileunder Sections 420 r/w. 120(b) of IPC against A1 to A9 and summonsissued on 06.08.2001.18.Now, the petitioners/accused Nos. 8 and 9 are challengingthe proceedings in C.C.No.5929 of 2001. The first petitioner/AccusedNo.8 is engaged in manufacturing of cars and secondpetitioner/accused No.9 is the Ex-managing director of the firstpetitioner's company. Further, the petitioners contended that therespondent/complainant approached the District redressal forum inO.P.No.478 of 1998, alleging the same allegations mentioned in theprivate complaint before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,Chennai. The petitioners have also appeared and filed the reply.While such a petition is already pending for the same cause ofaction, the respondent/complainant preferred a police complaint in F-4, Thousand Lights Police Station in Crime No.329 of 1999 for analleged offence under Section 420, 406, 477 r/w. 120(b) of IPC. Thesame was closed as mistake of facts by the police. Further, thecomplaint is baseless and has no prima facie and is lodged only witha view to harass the petitioner. The petitioners submit that even as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on date, the complainant is utilising the Maruti van purchased fromthe authorised dealers of the said company and there is no questionof replacement after accepting delivery as early as 1997 itself. Itis further alleged that the complainant has not made out any unfairtrade practice in the said complaint and even if so assuming but notadmitting, the respondent can only institute a suit for damages underthe sale of goods act which is pure civil dispute.19.The petitioners contend that as the vehicle was bought underhire purchase, the financier has a lien over the same and henceretains another key. Also the mentioning of a wrong colour of themaruti van is purely a topographical mistake made by the RTOauthorities concerned and the manufacturers do not have any objectionfor the same to be altered in the books.20.The learned counsels for the petitioners as well as therespondent argued the case and the citations submitted by therespondent's counsel, ie., (1)1999 (II) CTC 243 (Rajesh Bajaj ..vs.. State NCT of Delhi)(2)IV (2001) CCR 117 (SC) (M. Krishnan ..vs.. Vijay Singh andanother)(3)AIR 2002 SC 3372 (K.G.Premshankar ..vs.. Inspector of Policeand another)have gone through.21.After considering the contentions of the petitioners as wellas the respondent, the Court is of the view that the case is fit fortrial. So, the learned Magistrate has to come to a correctconclusion after examining all parties and verification of documents,witnesses etc., The petitioners 1 & 2 / accused 8 & 9 are alsohaving role in the said car transaction. The case in the consumerforum is of civil nature. But C.C.No.5929 of 2001 has been taken onan alleged offence under Sections 420 r/w. 120(b) of IPC.22.In the interest of justice, the Court is not inclined tointerfere interfere with the proceedings in C.C.No.5929 of 2001pending on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently,connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mraTo1.The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras1 cc To Mr.S.Raghunathan, Advocate, SR.333161 cc To Mr.P.V.Visweswaran, Advocate, SR.33068Crl.O.P.No.3069 of 2002andM.P.No.1607 of 2007rs(CO)SRA(30/7/2009)