ANNAMALAI BUS TRANSPORT LTD. vs K.S. SOMASUNDARAN

THE appeal arises out of the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras, dated 29.1.92 in O.P. 419/91. THE opposite parties are the appellants.

ON 12.11.90 the complainant booked a new Maruti Car with the first opposite party which is the authorized dealer of the second opposite party, manufacturer and paid the full price of Rs. 1,11,184.95 on that day by means of a Demand Draft. He was assured that the car would be delivered within 2 to 2-1/2 months. But is was actually delivered only on 17.7.91. The first opposite party claimed and received an additional sum of Rs. 16,282.26 being the difference in the cost of the vehicle as on the date of the delivery. The complainant therefore claims that he is not liable to pay the increase in price, demands refund of the said sure of Rs. 16,282.26 and compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The opposite parties contended that the delivery of the vehicle is only in accordance with turn basis as per the priority and there is no firm commitment in respect of the date of delivery. It is also contended that the price of the vehicle is the price prevailing as on the date of the delivery as per contract and the first opposite party has therefore claimed the contractual amount and there is therefore no deficiency of service.

The District Forum found that there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in the collection of the full price amount at the time of the booking and claiming additional amount at the time of the delivery. It ordered the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs. 16,282.26 with interest at @ 18%, pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- towards costs. Hence this appeal.

ON 12.11.90, the complainant has booked with the first opposite party which is the authorized dealer of the second opposite party for the supply of a Maruti Car and paid the full price of Rs. 1,11,184.95 which was the prevailing price on that date. At the time of the delivery on 17.7.91, the price of the car has escalated and an additional sum of Rs. 16,282.26 has been collected from the complainant. The question is whether the opposite parties are entitled to Claim this additional amount. The opposite parties have produced before the District Forum, the Order Booking Form, which shows that the prices prevailing at the time of delivery will be applicable. The purchaser has thus agreed to purchase the vehicle at the price prevailing on the date of delivery. In view of this term in the Booking Order it is not open to the purchaser to contend that the seller is not entitled to claim any additional amount merely because he has paid at the time of booking the full price which was prevailing as on that date. This is the view expressed by the State Commission of Rajasthan in K.L. Jain v. M/s. Alpha Automobiles II (1991) CPJ 221. and by State Commission of Karnataka in T.R.G .Achar v. Premier Automobiles II (1991) CPJ 477. We respectfully agree with the said view. Where, however, the delay in delivery of the vehicle is due to any default on the part of the dealer, as where he delivers out of turn to somebody else or intentional delays delivery, the purchaser will not be liable to pay the increase, in price which comes into effect during the period between the time when the vehicle could and ought to have been delivered to him and the time when it was actually delivered. Such a case came up for consideration before the Himachal Pradesh State Commission in Ravinder Singh v. M/s. Premnath Motors Private Ltd. I (1991) CPJ 211. It was held therein that the second respondent made intentional delays in the delivery of the car and'' finally the present disputed car was delivered to the complainant without presentation of Priority cum-Intimation Card. It was held that the complainant was entitled to refund of the amount collected towards increase in price. In the case before us there is no allegation that the delay in delivering the car was intentional on the part of the opposite parties or any of them and the complainant therefore cannot claim refund of the additional amount collected from him as escalated price.

BUT there is one other aspect of the matter which we should not lose sight of. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,11,184.95 on 12.11.90 at the time of booking and the car has been delivered only on 17.7.91, more than 8 months thereafter. This huge amount of Rs. 1,11,184.95 has been utilised by the opposite parties while the complainant has been deprived of the benefit of the said amount. The complainant must also have been put to much mental pain and agony. It is just and proper that the opposite parties are directed to disgorge the benefit and the complainant is awarded sufficient compensation. In K. Haridasan v. M/s. M.O. Hasan Kuthoos Maricar I (1991) CPJ 688 (NC). the National Commission found that where the vehicle delivered after a delay of several months the complainant must be awarded reasonable compensation. We find that it would be just and proper to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation to the complainant by way of interest on the amount of Rs. 1,11,184.95 at @ 18% p.a. which is the prevailing commercial rate of interest from 12.11.90 till 17.7.91 which will come to Rs. 13,597.87. In the result the appeal is allowed in part, the order of the District Forum is modified and the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 13,597.87 within one month from the date of the receipt of this order. There will be no order as to costs throughout. Appeal partly allowed.