Maruti Udyog Limited vs RATTAN MITTAL

THIS appeal is by M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited challenging order of District Forum, Ludhiana dated June 2,1998 giving direction to the appellant M/s. Maruti Udyog to refund Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. January, 1996 till realisation alongwith costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

SINCE there is no dispute on facts, they can be summarised as arising out of the pleadings of the parties. In January, 1996, in response to an advertisement issued by Maruti Udyog Limited in respect of sale of 50000 Maruti Zen Cars, the complainant Rattan Mittal of Ferozepur City got booked one such car vide Application No. 422066 on deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. Subsequently, on April 18, 1996, the complainant called upon to opposite parties to communicate to him the priority number but no such priority number was allotted. On oral request he was informed by the dealer Stan Auto Private Limited, Ludhiana opposite party No. 2 that his priority number was 6200-ZO-1755. However, he did not receive any communication in that respect. On April 23, 1996, he again requested for retention of the amount and for delivery of the vehicle. SINCE nothing of the sort was done, he claimed refund of the amount and compensation. Maruti Udyog Limited submitted its version taking up the plea that as per scheme, first 50000 allottees were to be accomodated in respect of sale of cars and the draw was held in that respect. Thereafter the amount of unsuccessful persons were retained. The complainant was also sent refund voucher dated April 30,1996 for Rs. 25,187.50, however that registered letter was received back undelivered, hence there was no deficiency in rendering service on their part. Subsequently, on April 15, 1997, Maruti Zen Car was declared on free sale i.e. on demand the same could be delivered. The District Forum after noticing that the registered letter had been received back with the Postal Authorities report ''left the house'', held deficiency on the part of Maruti Udyog for not alloting car or priority number to the complainant inspite of the letters written by the complainant referred to above. SINCE the amount was kept by the Maruti Udyog, the directions as stated above were given. Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that unfair trade practice was adopted by the opposite parties in keeping the money inspite of several letters having been issued and without delivering the car or the seniority number. Reference was made to the decision of Supreme Court in Om Parkash v. Assistant Engineer Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another, II (1994) CPJ 1 (SC)=CPC 1994 (2) 15. The ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot be applied to the case in hand as in that case the car was delivered on a subsequent date with enhanced price although his turn had come earlier. The same was held to be unfair trade practice. The other case referred to is of the Haryana State Commission in M/s. Modern Automobiles v. Aninashi Lal Narain of Gohana, 1992 CPC 626. That was also a case where car was delivered at the enhanced price and the opposite party was held guilty of deficiency in service for late delivery of the car in the present case, as per facts stated above, Maruti Udyog of their own, within a reasonable time of the holding of draw, had refunded the amount due to the persons who were unsuccessful in the draw like the complainant in the present case. The registered letter sent to the complainant was received back as stated above. Hence, prima facie there was no deficiency on the part of the Maruti Udyog in this matter. Subsequently, when the sale was made open, anybody could approach and get the car and the complainant, if interested, could also get the same. No offer was made while the complaint was pending before the District Forum that the complainant wanted to get the car and get the amount adjusted. Similar request was repeated before this Commissions as well but it was not accepted on behalf of the complainant. Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant was entitled to compensation, may be by way of interest @ 18% as the initial amount of Rs. 25,000/- paid by the complainant remained with the Maruti Udyog for such a long period. This contention could be accepted only if a finding had been recorded of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Maruti Udyog. Otherwise Counsel for the Maruti Udyog admitted that they were willing to refund the amount alongwith 9% interest as the same amount was also liable to be adjusted against the price of Maruti Zen, if purchased by the complainant, and we find it to be fair offer but it was not acceptable to the complainant.

In the peculiar circumstances as stated above, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the District Forum, we direct/ leave it to the Maruti Udyog to deposit the amount of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith 9% interest thereon, within one month from the date of communication of this order, in the name of the complainant by Bank Draft, with the District Forum for handing over of the same to the complainant. We hope this would satisfy the complainant. Appeal allowed.