KANTILAL KARSHANDAS RUDANI vs JYOTI MOTORS

OPPONENT No. 2 Swaraj Mazda Limited is manufacturer of motor vehicle.s and opponent No, 1 Jyoti Motors is its authorised dealer. Complainant, who is carrying on business at Rajkot booked a bus manufactured by opponent No. 2 with opponent No. 1 and deposited Rs. 50,000/- on February 12, 1993. According to the complainant, opponent No. 1 represented to him that bus would be delivered within three-four days. However, the bus was not delivered as promised and when the complainant approached opponent No. 1, he was given to understand that the bus had left Chandigarh and that he should pay further amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to opponent No. 2. The complainant, therefore, took out draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of opponent No. 2. OPPONENT No. 2, however, did not deliver the bus for a long time. Ultimately, on March 10,1993 opponent No. 1 informed the complainant that the bus was expected on the next day and that he should pay the balance of Rs. 2,30,000/-. It may be mentioned here that the price of the bus was Rs. 4,80,000/-. The complainant made payment of Rs. 2,30,000/- by cheque on March 3, 1993. This cheque was encashed by opponent No. 1. However, the opponent did not deliver the bus as promised. The complainant, therefore, on much 19,1993 asked opponent No. 1 to return Rs. 4,80,000/- paid by him as he did not want the bus. The complainant gave it in writing to opponent No. 1 that he did not want the delivery of the bus and that the amount paid by him should be returned to him. The opponents, however, failed to repay the amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- to him inspite of notice. The complainant has alleged that the opponents cannot force him to purchase the bus and that the attitude of the opponents in not paying back his money is unreasonable. On the above grounds, the complainant has filed this complaint against the opponents for recovery of Rs. 4,80,000/- together with 24% interest, Rs. 18,000/- for business loss and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

THE opponents have not filed any reply to the complaint. However, at the time of hearing of this complaint, it was submitted that the complainant was given quotation as requested by him for the bus and in this quotation price of the bus was stated to be Rs. 4,84,570/- and the delivery of the bus was to be given from the factory of opponent No. 2 at Asron in Ropar District of Punjab. In addition to the aforesaid price, the complainant had to pay transportation charges of Rs. 3,900,00. THE complainant booked order for bus and paid Rs. 50,000/- at that time. According to the opponents, ordinarily, it takes six to eight weeks to deliver the bus after full payment of the price is made. THE complainant had made request for bus of special green colour and ordinarily, it would have taken more time to deliver the bus of this colour. However, opponent No. 1 made special efforts to see that early delivery of the bus was given to the complainant. THE bus was received at Rajkot on March 22,1993, before the normal delivery time. However, it was the complainant who refused to take delivery of the bus. According to the opponents, the complainant was bound to take delivery of the bus. It was pointed out that the above defence of the opponents was taken in reply dated April 19, 1993 given to the complainant''s notice dated April 10, 1993. THE above reply was given by opponent No. l''s Advocate Mr. Chandrakant L. Mehta and this reply is produced by the complainant alongwith other documents. In the course of hearing of this complaint, it was suggested to opponent No. 1 to refund to the complainant Rs. 4,80,000/- paid by him towards the price of the bus. Opponent No. 1 accepted the suggestion and paid Rs. 4,80,000/- to the complainant on March 8,1994. Documents which include receipt passed by the complainant are produced in support of the above payment. The learned Advocate for the complainant also stated that the complainant had received refund/payment of Rs. 4,80,000/-. Therefore, the main question of refunding Rs. 4,80,000/- as demanded by the complainant is resolved.

However, the learned Advocate for the complainant submitted that the complainant should be awarded interest @ 24% on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- from the date the said amount was paid till its refund. The learned Advocate also prayed that the complainant should be paid Rs. 18,000/- for loss of business and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony or torture. The facts stated in reply dated April 19, 1993 given by opponent''s Advocate Mr. C.L. Metha are not disputed. Apart from that, it is the complainant''s case that he had booked bus on February 12,1993 on depositing of payment of Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter the complainant paid Rs. 4,30,000/- to opponent No. 1 by two instalments by March 10,1993. Thus, by March 10,1993 the complainant paid to the opponent Rs. 4,80,000/-. According to the complainant, delivery of the bus was promised within two or three days when amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- was paid on February 24,1993. However, since the opponents failed to deliver the bus as promised, the complainant demanded refund of money paid by him on March 19, 1993. He again demanded refund of money by notice dated April 10,1993 to which reply as stated above was given by the opponent No. l''s learned Advocate. The question is whether opponent No. 1 or opponents had promised to give delivery of bus within two or three days from February 24,1993 as alleged by the complainant. There is absolutely no documentary or other evidence except the word of the complainant to prove that such promise was given by opponents or opponent No. 1 on behalf of both the opponents. The complainant had demanded bus of special green colour and this fact is not disputed by the complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement made on behalf of the opponents that bus of special green colour was not readily available and, therefore, the opponents were not likely to have promised to deliver the bus within 2/3 days from February 24, 1993. There is no reason to disbelieve the opponent''s statement that unless full payment of the price is received, the bus would not be delivered. It was only on March 10,1993 that the complainant made payment of full price by making payment of Rs. 2,30,000/-. Had the opponents promised to make delivery of the bus within 2/3 days from February 24, 1993, the complainant would not have paid the balance of Rs. 2,30,000/- on March 10, 1993. The question of delivery of bus arose only on payment of full price of the bus on March 10, 1993. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the opponents that ordinarily, it takes 6 to 8 weeks to make delivery of the bus which is despatched from State of Punjab. But was received at Rajkot for delivery on March 22,1993, within 12 days from the date of full payment and it was offered to the complainant. However, the complainant had, on March 19,1993 demanded refund of the money paid by him and refused to take delivery. Once having placed the order, and made full payment of the price of the bus, the complainant was under obligation to take delivery of the bus if it was offered within reasonable time. The opponents had offered delivery of the bus within reasonable time after receiving full payment of the price and, therefore, the complainant could not have refused to take delivery thereof. However, he refused to take delivery of the bus. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the opponents could not be blamed for not refunding the price of the bus which they had received from the complainant. It was the complainant who had committed breach of the agreement by not taking delivery of the bus. However, at the suggestion of the Commission opponent No. 1 refunded full price of Rs. 4,80,000/- to the complainant. In our opinion, the complainant should be satisfied with this refund of amount. There is no question of paying any interest or compensation to the complainant. Therefore, the Complainant''s claim for interest @ 24%, compensation of Rs. 18,000/- for business loss and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony/ torture is not at all justified. Claim for refund of Rs. 4,80,000/- does not survive since that amount has already been refunded to the complainant. In these circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to claim any further relief.

IN the result, this complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.