HARIDASS GENERATORS vs SAYA AUTOMOBILES

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 21.9.2000, passed by District Forum (North-West) in Complaint Case No. 1846/99 - entitled Shri Lalit Gupta v. M/s. Saya Automobile Ltd. & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant, in the present appeal, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that he had booked one Maruti Car A/C Tatkal on 22.8.1996 and against the abovesaid booking a car delivered to him was not Maruti A/C Tatkal but Maruti A/C (CR4AS2) with a catalyser. THE grievance of the appellant, in the complaint, was that besides not delivering the car booked by him, the car delivered to him was also defective. THE appellant, in the complaint, filed by him, had claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondents and the stand taken by the respondents was that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, while holding that respondents 2 to 5 could not be saddled with any responsibility, has held respondent No. 1 guilty of adopting unfair trade practice and on the basis of the above findings, has directed respondent No. 1 to refund to the appellant a sum of Rs. 15,939/- (charged in excess as price of Maruti A/C Tatkal car while delivering Maruti A/C Catalyser) together with interest @ 15% per annum on the abovesaid amount of Rs. 15,939/- from 30.8.1996 till actual payment. Respondent No. 1 has also been directed to pay another sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to the appellant for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation.

IN the present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Act, the only grievance of the appellant is with regard to the inadequacy of the relief given to him by the District Forum vide impugned order. On the above point, we have heard the appellant at length. It was submitted by the appellant during the course of arguments that the District Forum, vide impugned order, has simply granted interest @ 15% per annum, whereas, the same should have been @ 23.25% per annum. Similarly, on the point of compensation also, it was stated by him that the compensation and cost of litigation should have been Rs. 1,00,000/- and not Rs. 15,000/- as awarded by the District Forum. IN our opinion, the above contention, advanced by the appellant is devoid of substance. The District Forum, as already stated, has awarded interest @ 15% per annum which appears to be reasonably justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the appellant also could not satisfy us as to the basis of his claiming interest @ 23.25% per annum which, in our opinion, is too exorbitant and cannot be allowed by any stretch of imagination. Similarly, the compensation amount, awarded by the District Forum, also appears to be adequate. As already stated, the District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation. As per settled law, compensation in such like matters can be awarded for the actual loss sustained and the appellant, in the grounds of appeal, has himself admitted that it is impossible to adduce evidence regarding the actual loss sustained by him. IN the presence of the above facts, no fault can be found with the above findings of the learned District Forum. For the above reasons, in our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.