A.K.GULATI vs VEER ENGINEERS

THE present appeal is directed against the order of District Forum (North-west), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi dated 4.11.2003, in Complaint Case No. 623/2002 -entitled Shri A.K. Gulati v. M/s. Veer Engineers.

BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts are that the appellant had approached the learned District Forum with the grievance that he had booked a tricyle meant for handicapped persons with the respondent having model number Tarun Chetak, with Bajaj Chetak Engine of 150 CC for a total consideration of Rs. 48,000/- and had already deposited an advance amount of Rs. 15,000/- with the respondent. A further amount of Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid at the time of delivery and an amount of Rs. 8,000/- was to be adjusted against the delivery of old vehicle to the respondent and the balance amount was to be paid in 5 instalments of Rs. 3,000/- each. However, despite the appellant having made the payment of Rs. 42,000/- i.e., Rs. 15,000/- on 11.11.2001, Rs. 10,000/- on 12.3.2002, Rs. 5,000/- on 15.7.2002, Rs. 4,000/- on 4.8.2002 and Rs. 8,000/- as adjustment of the price of old vehicle given in exchange of the new vehicle to the respondent, the respondent had failed to deliver the said vehicle within a period of one month from the date of booking i.e., 11.12.2001. It was, therefore, alleged by the appellant in his complaint filed before the District Forum that the appellant had suffered untold harassment and agony in having to make number of visits to the factory of the appellant to request for the delivery of the vehicle which was finally delivered to the appellant only on 15.7.2002. It was also stated by the appellant in his complaint that he had sought a loan of Rs. 30,000/- for the purchase of the above said vehicle which had to be repaid with interest @ 18% p.a. and as such he was entitled to the redressal of his grievances as prayed for in his complaint filed before the District Forum. The stand of the respondent in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum was that the total consideration to be paid by the appellant in respect of the vehicle booked was Rs. 48,000/- and as per the quotation given by the respondent the booking amount of Rs. 25,000/- had to be paid before the respondent could book engine of Bajaj Chetak 150 CC, whereas the appellant had made the payment of Rs. 15,000/- initially and the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the respondent only on 12.3.2002. Furthermore, the process of delivery of engine normally takes a minimum period of 2-3 months as the same has to be delivered from Bajaj Auto Limited, Pune and since the engine was made available to the respondent only on 10.7.2002, there was no delay in delivering the vehicle to the appellant on 15.7.2002. It was further stated by the respondent that the appellant had still to pay a balance of Rs. 6,000/-. The respondent had also made a counter claim for the amount of Rs. 1,14,640/- in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum.

The learned District Forum on the basis of material on record had come to the conclusion that there was indeed delay in the delivery of the vehicle to the appellant and as such the respondent being guilty of deficiency in service was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the appellant together with Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum, the appellant has approached this Commission by filing the present appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material placed on record. It has been held by the learned District Forum vide impugned order that the vehicle in question was delivered late to the appellant despite assurance that the same would be delivered within one month of the date of booking/initial deposit. However, the appellant has contended that the initial deposit of Rs. 15,000/- was made by him on 11.11.2001 and as such the delivery should have been made in terms of assurance extended by the respondent by 12.12.2001, whereas the vehicle in question was delivered only on 15.7.2002 after lot of harassment and expenses on the part of the respondent. Even if the version of facts as stated by the respondent is assumed to be correct there is a delay of about seven months in the delivery of vehicle. The learned District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost. It is also an admitted fact on the part of the appellant that the balance amount of Rs. 6,000/- out of the total price of the vehicle in question was withheld by him. As such, the appellant has also taken the benefit of that amount of Rs. 6,000/-. Accordingly, in the circumstances there is no occasion to grant any further compensation to the appellant and as such the present appeal, filed by the appellant, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.