MARUTHI UDYOG LIMITED vs T.V.BABU

THIS appeal and revision are filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Idukki in O.P. No 197/91.

APPEAL No. 2/93 was filed by the 1st opposite party and the Revision No. 13/92 was filed by the 2nd opposite party. Since the order under attack is a final order only an appeal would be against that order and the revision 13/ 92 is not maintainable and accordingly the revision petition 13/92 is dismissed. But the dismissal is not material in view of the appeal filed by the 1st opposite party. As regards Appeal No. 2/93 the learned Counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that the order passed by the District Forum is erroneous and illegal, in view of the decision of the National Commission in Maruthi Udyog Limited v. Kodaikkanal Township & Another, 1992 (2) CRF 728.

In order to appreciate the contentions raised by learned Counsel, it is profitable to refer to a few facts. The complainant booked a Maruthi Car on 4-5-91 and the entire price of the car was remitted on 21-5-91. On that date the price of the car was Rs. 1,27,834.41. The opposite party promised to deliver the car approximately within 8 weeks which expired by 16-7-91. The car was offered to the complainant only on 6-8-91. In the meanwhile there was a price hike on 25-7-91, on account of increase in the excise duty. The opposite party demanded the complainant to pay the difference of Rs. 31,183.44. The position taken by the complainant was that full price of the car was remitted on 25-5-91 and there was no justification for demanding higher price on account of the price hike due to increase in the excise duty. The opposite party was not prepared to deliver the car without payment of difference in price. But the complainant was not willing to pay the increased price. It is in the circumstances the complainant filed the above complaint with prayer to deliver the car at the price existed prior to the price hike. 5.The District Forum took the view that the complainant was liable to pay only the price at the time when the car was booked or at any rate the price which prevailed on the promised date of delivery. It also took the view it has no jurisdiction to direct the delivery of the car. In that view the District Forum passed an order directing to pay compensation of Rs. 68,412/-. As mentioned earlier in view of the decision of the National Commission referred to above it cannot be held there is any undue delay in offering the delivery. The delivery was offered on 6-8-91. The car was promised to deliver by 16-7-91. The delay is not unreasonable and therefore no compensation can be granted on that ground. The finding of the District Forum that the complainant is liable to pay the price prevailed on the date on which the complainant remitted the price of the car also cannot be sustained in the light of the above decision of the National Commission. National Commission has held that according to the invoice itself it is the price that prevailed at the time of delivery that was applicable. Therefore we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum on this point also. 6. Normally we would have remitted the matter to the District Forum. But we feel that it would cause unnecessary hardship to both parties. The complainant is not willing to take delivery of the car at the increased price. We would therefore direct the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 21-5-91. In this connection we may also mention that in the Memorandum of Appeal the appellant has expressed willingness to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In the circumstances, we feel the interest which we ordered is reasonable and not on the high side. The impunged order is set aside and the appeal is disposed of as above. The payment will be paid within one month from today. Appeal allowed. ___________________