G.THANKARAJ vs BRANCH MANAGERM. G.F. (INDIA) LTD.

THIS appeal is by the complainant.

HE has purchased a Tata Chassis from the opposite parties. But between the quotation date which is 15.6.93 and the date of delivery which is 24.6.93 there was a hike of price of Rs. 20,145/- which the complainant paid in order to get delivery of the vehicle. The case of the complainant is that this hike of price should not have been insisted upon by the opposite parties. Accordingly, he filed a complaint before the District Forum in which he prayed for the following reliefs: "to pass an award of Rs. 2.41,273/- (Two Lakhs forty one-thousand two hundred and seventy three) with filing date 5.10.93, interest @ 18% per annum against the opposite parties jointly and severally with costs".

The District Forum after going through the evidence let in by the parties in an elaborate order found that the complaint was ill-founded and by order dated 3.4.96 dismissed the complaint.

In the appeal the complainant would urge that the opposite parties should have sold the vehicle to him at the price quoted and that the levy of the price of the hike was unjustified. He further added that for a similar person namely Robinson they have not claimed this hike of price. On perusal of the records and after hearing of arguments we find that the alleged difference of treatment, between him and Robinson, the opposite parties was justified by the difference of the circumstances as the District Forum has clearly brought out. We need not go into the question further because even if any discrimination has taken place that will not be a cause of action before the machinery created under the Consumer Protection Act unless it is shown that the price claimed is excessive or unreasonable. If any favour has been shown on account of personal considerations or others to one client, the merchant is not forced to extent the same favour to all others.

LET us now consider whether the increase of price was justified. As per Ex. B1 it is clearly stated that the price quoted is subject to change and that the price will be the one prevailing at the date of delivery. The second condition is that the amount should be sent to them by way of demand draft. The complainant through his financier has not sent a demand draft but has chosen to send the cheque. The cheque was despatched on 18.6.93. It was received by the opposite parties on 21.6.93 and it was encashed on 22.6.93. Therefore, the date on which the contract was completed is 22.6.93. But the hike of price happened on 19.6.93. The learned Counsel for the complainant would urge that since the cheque was despatched on 18.6.93, the price as prevailing on that date should be applied. But there is no evidence to show that the complainant has made known on that date, that he accepted the quotation and has sent a cheque. The only communication is the forwarding of cheque which reached the other party only on 21.6.93. Even if this date is taken as the relevant date, that does not further the case of the complainant. This Commission has consistently held that in case of payment of full price any hike of price after the full payment would not have any effect. But in this case the payment has taken place only after the hike of price.

THEREFORE, there is no unfair trade practice nor deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in claiming the difference in price in the sale of the vehicle. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.