DELHI AUTOMOBILES LTD. vs RAMESH HOODA.

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 1.11.1999 passed by the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh in Complaint Case No. 537 of 1998. The appellants in this case are M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, New Delhi and the same complainant having office at 181/3-B, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

THE respondent No. 1 Shri Ramesh Hooda had filed the aforesaid complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh claiming refund of the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, the booking money for the car under brand name Peugeot-309 with interest and for damages for harassment. THE total amount claimed by the complainant was to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. THE booking of the said car was done on the application of the complainant on 28.10.1995. THE complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as the booking amount. THE complainant was allotted Priority No. D-304/ 026. M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, U.T., Chandigarh arrayed as opposite party No. 3 in the complainant case and the appellant No. 2 in this appeal had communicated the priority number to the complainant on 3rd of July, 1996 and intimated to the complainant that he may deposit further sum of Rs. 4,16,823.97. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs 4,16,023.97 through Bank Draft No. 308822 dated 4.7.1996 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch, Chandigarh. THE receipt was also obtained regrding the deposit of this amount from the Branch Manager of appellant No. 2 M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, Chandigarh. It was the case of the complainant that he was ensured by the opposite party that he will get the car within six weeks from the date of deposit of the whole amount. Despite the fact that the whole amount was deposited on 4.7.1996, the car was not delivered to him within the stipulated time of six weeks. THE complainant contacted the respondent No. 3/appellant No. 2 several times and he was told that due to the strike in the factory, the car could not be supplied to him within the stipulated period. THE strike in the factory was over in the month of December, 1996. THE complainant once again assured that the delivery of the car would be effected very shortly in the month of December, 1996. THE complainant, however, did not get the delivery of the car so promised. Being frustrated by not getting the delivery of the car which he had booked, he sent a letter to the opposite parties of the complaint and appellant in the instant appeal on 4.3.1997, cancelling the booking of the car and asking for the refund of the total amount deposited by him. THE opposite party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd., Kalyan Shil Road, Manpada, Dombivli, Distt. Thane (Maharashtra) wrote to the complainant vide letter No. S/4100 dated 28.4.1997 that the amount of the car deposited by him with the dealer had not been sent to the office of the manufacturer of the car i.e. opposite party No. 2. Once again the complainant contacted the dealer at Chandigarh to enquire about the reasons for not sending the amount of the car deposited by him to the office of the opposite party No. 1 but he could not get satisfactory reply to his query. THE case of the complainant was that the first instalment of the price of the car deposited by him was refunded on 31.5.1997 vide Banker Cheque No. MC-1092/ 97 which was for a sum of Rs,. 2,16,823/-. THE second instalment of Rs. 50,000/- was made to the complainant on 16.6.1997 whereas the third instalment of Rs. 50,000/- was made to the complainant on 19.6.1997. THE last instalment of Rs. 1 lac was paid to the complainant on 16.7.1997, on which date the complainant gave a receipt to the opposite party No. 3/appellant No. 2 that he had received the full payment of the amount deposited by him with opposite party No. 3/ appellant No. 2 aforesaid. THE grievance of the complainant was that despite notice given to the respondents on 2.4.1998 regarding the refund of the booking amount of 25,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum and also interest at the same rate on the amount deposited of a sum of Rs. 4,16,823.97, no reply was given by the opposite parties. A legal notice was also served on the respondents but no action was taken by the respondents. Hence, the complaint was filed as mentioned earlier. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh issued notices of the complaint case to the respondents. Replies were filed before the District Forum. The complainant as well as the respondent led evidence and after hearing both the sides, the District Forum recorded a categorical finding that the opposite parties were deficient in rendering service to the complainant and directed the opposite party No. 3 M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, Chandigarh to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant for the period, it remained with them. An amount of Rs. 3,000/- was also ordered to be paid on account of inconvenience and expenditure incurred by the complainant. The District Forum also directed that the opposite party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Pal Peugeot Limited shall make payment of booking amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant with interest till its payment and further directed the opposite party No. 3 aforesaid to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 4,16,82/.- by calculating the same, keeping in view the refund having been received by the complainant in instalments on different dated. The costs of the complaint case were quantified at Rs. 3,000/- which were ordered to be paid by opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 jointly and severally.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, this appeal has been filed by M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, New Delhi and M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, Chandigarh. The opposite party No. 1 M/s. Pal Peugeot Limited has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 while the complainant Ramesh Hooda has been impleaded as respondent No. 1. The record of the case was received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh. The notices were issued to the respondents who were served with the notices but only the complainant/respondent No. 1 put in appearance in appeal before us. None appeared for respondent No. 2 i.e. M/s. Pal Peugeot Limited, Distt. Thane, Maharashtra. We have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Vaneesh Kumar, Advocate and the respondent/complainant Mr . Ramesh Hooda in person. We have also carefully perused the judgment of the District Forum.

THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the District Forum should have awarded interest on the amount only for the period during which the delay took place. THE second point urged by the appellants was that the rate of interest, awarded by the District Forum was on the higher side and it should not have exceeded 9% per annum. THE respondent No. 1/complainant Mr. Ramesh Hooda, on the other hand, submitted that the interest has rightly been awarded by the District Forum @ 12% per annum. He pointed out that the period of delay in the instant case was after six weeks of 4.7.1986 and the respondent No. 1 is entitled to get interest on the amount for this period. Dealing with the period of interest, the District Forum in Para 6 of the judgment oberved, iner alia, as under : "THE amount was deposited on 4.7.1996 whereas Rs. 2,16,823/- was refunded on 31.5.1997, Rs. 50,000/- on 16.6.1997, Rs. 50,000/- on 19.6.1997 and Rs. 1,00,000/- was refunded on 16.7.1997. As complainant was not delivered the vehicle and the amount remained deposited with opposite party No. 3 whereas complainant stood deprived of the use of the same, so obviously he is entitled to be compensated for the loss he suffered. So as such opposite party No. 3 is directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant for the period it remained with them." On facts we find that there is no dispute between the parties. THE complainant deposited the price of the car, which was demanded from him by appellant No. 2/opposite party No. 3. THE amount had been deposited on 4.7.1996 and there was an assurance made by the appellant No. 2 that the car booked would be delivered to him within six weeks from the date of deposit of the price of the car. It is not disputed that the car could not be delivered to the complainant within that period. In this view of the matter, we find considerable merit in the arguments of respondent No. 1 that he was entitled to get interest after six weeks from the date of deposit of amount i.e. 4.7.1996. We find no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the interest should be confined only for the period of delay. Now coming to the rate of interest, the District Forum awarded interest on all the amounts @ 12% per annum. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the terms and conditions and instructions for priority registration of Peugeot Car which has been placed on record and a copy of which has also been filed in this appeal, which has been numbered as page No. 9. We find that under the heading of "allotment/cancellation", there is condition No. 12(a) which reads as under : "Interest would be payable @ 9% per annum, compounded annually. This will be calculated from the last date of booking for priority registration up to the last date of the month preceding the month in which priority is likely to mature as per the first intimation letter from the Company."

Condition No. 12(b) provides as under : "In case of cancellation, interest will be calculated from the last date of booking up to the date on which cancellation application is received by the Company. If the cancellation has been made after the issue of first intimation letter, the interest will be calculated as per 12(a) above."

Condition No. 12(c) provides as under : "However, no interest will be paid if the cancellation request is received or the other intimation letter is released by the Company, within 365 days from the date of closing of booking."

IN nutshell, the interest which the Company offered to pay on the amount of deposit was 9% per annum, compounded annually. IN other words, the interest which as per condition No. 12 is payable, is compoundable, as against which the District Forum has awarded simple interest @ 12% per annum. IN our view, no fault can be found in the finding of the Forum in awarding interest liberally i.e. simple interest as against compound interest which is contained in condition No. 12. After carefully appreciating the rival contention, we find no merit in this appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The order dated 1.10.1999 passed by the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.