AMARJIT SINGH SIDHU vs PAL PEUGEOT LTD.

THE complainant seeks refund of a sum of Rs. 4,32,576/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. THE complainant has also prayed for award of damages of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and torture undergone by him because of non-delivery of the car even after making the full payment of the price of the car. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been claimed as Counsel fee for sending legal notice and for filing the complaint. THE total amount claimed by the complainant is of a sum of Rs. 10,31,256/-.

THE complainant booked a Pal Peugeot car manufactured by O.P. No. 1 - M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. through its authorised dealer i.e. M/s. Amardeep Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid at the time of booking of the car vide demand draft dated 28.10.1995 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. A Priority No. 0085 was allotted on 24.6.1996 to the complainant as intimated by letter dated 24.6.1996 which further required the complainant to deposit a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 4,16,823/- in favour of Delhi Automobiles Limited payable at Delhi being the net amount payable after adjustment of the aforesaid booking amount. THE complainant received Receipt-cum-Priority Card for Peugeot Car dated 10.7.1996 and thereafter he paid a sum of Rs. 4,06,576/- vide draft dated 17.7.1996 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank duly acknowledged by Delhi Automobiles Ltd., New Delhi and its office located in Industrial Area, Chandigarh vide Receipt No. 020302. It has been alleged that the total price of the car was fixed at Rs. 4,16,823/- vide Annexure ''B''. THE complainant was informed vide letter from O.P. No. 1 dated 11.6.1996 sent under U.P.C. that his turn to get the car was likely to mature by the second fortnight of July, 1996 vide Annexure ''E''. The complainant went to O.P. No. 4 - M/s. Amardeep Motors (Pvt.) Ltd., 25/9, Phase II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh for delivery of his car when the O.P. No. 4 expressed its inability to deliver the car. The complainant sent two letters dated 10.7.1997 (vide Annexures F-1 and F-2). Copy of Annexure F-1 was sent to O.P. No. 2 - Delhi Automobiles Ltd., Delhi and copy of F-2 was forwarded to O.P. No. 1 - M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. but the complainant did not receive any reply from the O.Ps. The complainant served a legal notice dated 13.10.1997 through his Counsel Mr. Pawan K. Sharma, Advocate on O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 under Registered/A.D. Post. The legal notice was duly served on O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 inasmuch as the acknowledgement due cards were received back which are Annexures J-1 to J-3. The O.Ps. aforesaid had failed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant. The aforesaid act/conduct of the O.Ps. amounted to deficiency in service on their part. It has been contended that now after seven years of the booking of the car, the complainant is not interested in the delivery of the car. The complaint had initially been filed before the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh which had decided the complaint case and appeal against the same was filed before this State Commission which was decided on 16.12.2001. In appeal, it was held that the District Forum-I had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which involved reliefs valued at more than Rs. 5 lacs. The complaint was directed to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the competent Forum. Thereafter, the complaint was filed before this State Commission. The complainant impleaded four O.Ps. i.e. M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd., Dombivil, District Thane, Maharashtra; Delhi Automobiles Ltd., New Delhi; Delhi Automobiles, Chandigarh and M/s. Amardeep Motors (Pvt.) Ltd., Chandigarh. Subsequently, the complainant filed amended complaint on 22.2.2002.

Notice of the complaint was issued to the O.Ps. O.P. No. 2 - Delhi Automobiles Ltd., Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi was served vide A.D. Card placed on record and marked as Annexure ''A''. O.P. No. 3, office of O.P. No. 2, at Chandigarh was deemed served through O.P. No. 2. O.P. No. 1 - M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. was issued notice at the address of Dombivil, District Thane, Maharashtra and also through Managing Director, Jiwandeep Building, 10, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The notice was received back with the report ''Left without address''. No other address of O.P. No. 1 could be found out and as such O.P. No. 1 was deemed served sufficiently.

IT is relevant to point out that the O.P. No. 1 served at Dombivil address mentioned above in Appeal No. 59 of 2001 filed by O.P. No. 2 - Delhi Automobiles Ltd. In appeal aforesaid, Delhi Automobiles Ltd., New Delhi had not impleaded its Chandigarh Office as respondent. IT was after making sufficient efforts to serve O.P. No. 1 at the address which was mentioned in their own document placed on record in the form of Receipt-cum-Priority Card for Peugeot 309 Car that the service of the notice was held to be sufficient. In Annexure ''C'' on record, which is on the pad of Pal Peugeot Limited, the address mentioned is "Kalyan Shil Road, Manpada, Dombivil - 421 204, Dist. Thane (Maharashtra)". At the bottom of the document, the registered office has been shown as located in "Jeevan Deep Building, 10 Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110 001". None of the O.Ps. aforesaid appear to contest the complaint case which was proceeded ex parte. The complainant filed his evidence in the shape of his own affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint case. The affidavit of the complainant Shri Amarjit Singh Sidhu and the documents placed on record establish that the complainant had booked the Pal Peugeot Car and deposited the booking money. It has already been proved that he was allotted priority number of the said car vide Annexure ''B'' issued by O.P. No. 3 - Delhi Automobiles Limited. The receipt issued by O.P. No. 1 amply proves that Rs. 25,000/- were received by O.P. No. 1 as the booking amount for the aforesaid car. There is reference of the priority number in this document. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 4,06,576/- vide receipt dated 18.7.1996 issued by Delhi Automobiles Limited, O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure - ''D''. With the deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,06,576/-, the complainant had deposited in all up to 18.7.1996 a sum of Rs. 4,31,576/-. Annexure - ''E'' issued by the O.P. No. 1 and addressed to the complainant shows that the turn of the complainant for getting the aforesaid Pal Peugeot 309 Car was likely to mature by second fortnight of July, 1996. The complainant was asked to keep in touch with the dealer forthwith who will guide him with regard to the formalities to be completed. The complainant did not get the delivery of the Car and as such wrote a letter dated 10.7.1997 (Copies Annexures F-1 and F-2) and sent the same by registered A.D Post to the O.P Nos. 1 to 3 vide Annexure - ''G''. A legal notice was also served on O.P. Nos. 1 to 3, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-''H'' which is dated 13.7.1997. Annexure-''I'' is the photocopy of the postal receipt for sending a legal notice and Annexures J-1, J-2 and J-3 are the photo-copies of the acknowledgement due cards showing the service of the legal notice. The complainant has thus proved his case against the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 ex parte and the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the amounts deposited by him. So far as the interest on the amount of refund is concerned, it may be mentioned that the complainant has also prayed for damages of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and torture due to non-delivery of the car. The Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. P.R. Krishnan & Anr., I (1995) CPJ 43 (NC), has held that the complainant cannot be awarded the interest as well as the compensation as the same would amount to grant of double benefit. In Para 3 of the judgment, it was held, inter alia, as under : "...The conference of a double benefit by awarding both interest as well as lump-sum compensation in our opinion is not justified in law..."

The complainant has claimed interest @ 24% per annum which is on much higher side. In our considered opinion, the interest @ 10% per annum would be a reasonable rate of interest to be awarded on the amount of deposit to be paid from the date of deposit till its payment. So far as the liability to pay the amount is concerned, the complainant has proved that the O.P. No. 1, namely M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. received the amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 10.7.1996 vide Annexure - ''C'' while the remaining amount of Rs. 4,06,576/- paid to O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 vide Receipt dated 18.7.1996 (Annexure - D). The O.P. No. 1 and O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 are thus liable to refund the aforesaid amounts with interest @ 10% per annum from the dates of respective deposits till payment. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed ex parte against O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 who are directed to refund the amounts paid to them as under.

THE liability of O.P. No. 1 to refund the amount is limited upto Rs. 25,000/- for which it has issued a receipt to the complainant and O.P. No. 1 shall refund the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, the booking amount for the car aforesaid together with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. The O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 shall refund the remaining amount of Rs. 4,06,576/- to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. We quantify the costs of litigation at Rs. 4,000/-. The O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to pay the costs to the complainant and their liability shall be joint and several in respect to the payment of the litigation costs. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Complaint disposed of.