J.K.LAKHAN vs SECRETARY, THE PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD

THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the order dated 22.2.1991 passed by the District Forum, Belgaum in Complaint No. 102/90 on its file.

IT arises in this way : - The appellant booked a Premier Padmini Car Deluxe Model with respondent No. 2 who agreed to deliver the car within 15-20 days after full payment was made. The complainant made the full payment on 7.2.1990. But the car was delivered to him on 4.4.1990 as per the Delivery Note exhibit D-1. In the meantime, the price of the car was increased with effect from 27.3.1990 and the complainant had to pay Rs. 9,252.54 due to the increase in the price before taking delivery. Hence, the appellant filed a complaint for refund of the excess amount of Rs. 9,252.54 and for interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs. 1,13,354.64 from 7.2.1990 to 30.3.1990 and costs. Respondent No. 1 resisted the complaint by contending inter-alia that there was no delay in the delivery of the car; that the delivery was made through the dealers on seniority of payments; that the price prevailing on the date of the delivery of the car has to be paid by the Purchaser and that for the delay they have paid interest of Rs. 1,135/- and that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs.

Respondent No. 2 resisted the complaint by contending inter-alia that the Forum has no jurisdiction and that the Civil Court alone can decide the dispute; that there was no delay on their part in supplying the car; that the proforma invoice is given to the complainant only to facilitate him to get financial assistance and that it does not constitute offer or agreement between the parties; that he made all efforts to obtain the vehicle on 303.3.1990 and it was communicated to the complainant; that the complainant took delivery of the car on 13.4.1990 after payment of the additional price; that the complainant was at liberty not to take delivery of the car, if he was unwilling to pay the additional price and that the complainant is not entitled to refund of the excess amount paid.

PW1 was examined on behalf of the complainant and exhibits P1 to P8 were produced. DW1 was examined on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and exhibits D1 to D13 were produced. On the said material, the District Forum held that there was no negligence on the part of the respondents in supplying the car to the complainant and that the complainant was not entitled to refund of the excess amount paid and the interest claimed and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal by the complainant

IT is not disputed that in response to the post card Exhibit D-4 of the complainant, the proforma invoice Ex. P2 was sent by Respondent No. 2 to the complainant. Although it is mentioned in it that the delivery would be made within 15-20 days, it is not disputed that time was not the essence of the contract in respect of a movable property. In Ex. P2, it has been clearly mentioned that the price prevailing on the date of delivery of the car will have to be paid by the Purchaser. There is no material produced by the complainant to show that Respondent No. 2 had received the car prior to 30.3.1990 and that he had purposely delayed in delivering the car to him. On the other hand, Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 showed us the invoice despatching the Car from Bombay to Goa on 30.3.1990. So when the car itself was sent to the dealer on 30.3.1990, he cannot be blamed for delivering it on 4.4.1990 (vide Delivery Note Ex. Dl). The increase in the price was due to the increase in the excise duty by the Government and that goes to the Government. Hence, it cannot be said that there was any mala fide intention on the part of the respondents 1 & 2 in collecting the same. According to the Invoice, the Respondent No. 2 was to deliver the car on or before 28.2.1990. But he has delivered it on 4.4.1990 (vide Ex. D1) and for the delay admittedly interest of Rs. 1,135/- has been paid at the rate of 12% p.a. If the complainant had invested that amount as a long term deposit in a bank, he would have got that much of interest only and not 18% as urged by the appellant. Under the circumstances, the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint is proper. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Under the circumstances, we direct the Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.