J.M. RAMCHANDRA vs DELHI AUTOMOBILES LTD.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Mr. Ved Prakash, partner of M/s. J.M. Ramchandran & Co., a partnership concern, booked one Peugeot 309 car with M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., opposite party-1 in October ''95 by depositing a draft for Rs. 25,000/-. He paid a sum of Rs. 4,41,054/- on 20.7.96, which was encashed on 23.7.96. According to the complainant, opposite party failed to deliver the car within the time agreed to earlier even though the complainant paid several visits to them to expedite the delivery of the car. Having failed to get the delivery of the car, the complainant cancelled the order and asked for refund of the amount paid by him besides the booking amount with interest. The booking was transferred from the name of Mr. Ved Prakash in favour of the said partnership firm at his request. The opposite party issued two cheques both dated 18.12.96 for Rs. 4,41,054.22 and Rs. 25,440/- on account of amount deposited and interest @ 18% p.a. from 23.7.96 till the date of payment after deducting TDS amounting to Rs. 6,968/-. These cheques were sent to the complainant vide letter dated 12.12.96. The cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient balance. The complainant intimated about the dishonour of the cheques to opposite party on 21.12.96 and filed the present complaint on 2.1.97 claiming Rs. 9,91,490/-including Rs.5, 00,000/-on account of compensation for the mental agony, tension and harassment inflicted on the complainant.

IN the written version, it was stated that the booking having been made in the name of the firm that was a commercial concern, the present complaint was not maintainable. It was further stated that the car having not been delivered so far, the complainant was not a ''consumer'' and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it has been stated that the car could not be delivered due to strike in the factory of the manufacturer. The opposite party did not dispute the amount deposited by the complainant and also that the order had been cancelled on 25.1.96. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Mr. R.K. Vahi, Vice President of the opposite party company. In the replication the complainant brought out the fact that initially the car was booked by Mr. Ved Prakash, partner of the complainant firm and later got transferred in the name of the firm. The amount deposited with the opp. party had been drawn from the funds of the firm.

The material facts of this case are not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the opposite party issued two cheques, which were dishonoured on account of insufficiency of the funds. The complainant having cancelled the booking was clearly entitled to the refund of the amount along with interest as stipulated. Failure to re- fund the amount constituted deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to reasonable compensation on that account.

ANOTHER question debated before us was that in addition to the sum of Rs. 4,41,054/- the complainant had paid Rs. 25,000/- at the time of booking and he is entitled to the refund of the same. The contention of Mr. Moti Jiandani, A Representative of opposite party is that according to the terms of the booking order, the afore said amount was payable by Bank draft only in favour of PAL-Peugeot Ltd., Bombay and the amount is to be refunded only by the manufacturer. Mr. Jiandani further pointed out that the manufacturer had not been impleaded in this case and M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., dealer of the manufacturer, was not liable to refund the said amount with or without interest. The contention on behalf of the complainant is that the original allotment letter and priority card were delivered in original duly discharged to opposite party-1 and they are liable to refund the amount along with interest. On behalf of the opposite party, it was submitted that the original receipt-cum-priority intimation card duly discharged given by the complainant had been sent to the manufacturer through courier service vide their letter dated 20.11.96. At the time of hearing, the original booking form, containing terms and conditions as also the original office copy of the letter dated 20.11.96 were brought for our perusal. Copies of the same have been placed on record. From the above material there is no manner of doubt that the booking amount of Rs. 25,000/- was sent by bank draft in favour of PAL Peugeot Ltd., Bombay. It is further established that the original receipt-cum-priority intimation card duly discharged were forwarded to the manufacturer. The manufacturer has not been impleaded as a party. The complainant may have his remedy for the refund of the amount from the manufacture, if so advised. With regard to the balance amount of Rs. 4,41,054/there is no manner of doubt that the same was required to be refunded within a reasonable time of the cancellation of the booking order. Admittedly, so far the opposite party has failed to refund the same.

FOR these reasons, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 4,41,054/-alongwith 18% interest from 23.7.96 till date of refund. In the iota totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if in addition to the interest the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- as additional compensation. We order accordingly. This order shall be complied with within four weeks of the receipt of a copy thereof. Both the parties be informed accordingly. Ordered accordingly.