CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

JAGBUSAN KUMAR JAIN vs GOYAL AUTOMOBILES

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 9 June 1993 · Citation: 1995 2 CPJ 98

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S.Varma , S.P.Goyal , Vidya Sonker J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 390 words
1.

Justice K.S. Verma, President

2.

THE complainant approached the District Forum with the allegation that he booked an order for supply of Montana Car with the opposite party and deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Lateron the complainant prayed to the opposite party that he does not want to purchase the car and prayed for the return of Rs. 10,000/- and also claimed damages from the opposite party. We have perused the complaint. On the one hand the complainant placed order for supply of Montana Car with the opposite party but without indicating any reason for not purchasing claimed that the price be returned alongwith interest and damages. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant has filed an Appeal. From a perusal of the Judgment rendered by the District Forum it appears that the Distt. Forum has taken the view that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the C.P.A., 1986. This view taken by the District Forum is clearly incorrect. The complainant wanted to purchase goods which was to be supplied by the opposite party on payment of certain price. In the instant case the Complainant does not want to purchase the car and prays for return of money. We accordingly hold that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Act.

3.

THE next question is what relief the complainant is entitled to on the allegation made in the complaint. We do not appreciate the conduct of the Complainant in first placing the order and then lateron indicating to the opposite party that he does not wish to purchase the car. If the Complainant intended to do so have he should informed the opposite party reasons for avoiding the contract. We do not approve of this attitude of the consumer. Nevertheless the Complainant is entitled to return of Rs. 10,000/- as the fact that he paid this amount to opposite party has not been repudiated. We accordingly hold that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the C.P.A., 1986 and is entitled to claim the return of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite party. We clearly negative the claim of the Complainant to interest and damage.

4.

THE Appeal and the complaint are decided in the manner indicated above. Appeal allowed.