Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Hari Prakash

THE present Revision Petition is filed by the Maruti Udyog Ltd. against the order of the State Commission, Rajasthan in Appeal No. 139 of 1995 dated 30.7.2002. THE brief facts for the case are as under: Shri Hari Prakash, respondent has booked his order for purchase of a Maruti Car in the year 1986 by depositing Rs. 10,000 as advance payment towards the consideration. According to the respondent the delivery of the car was to be given to him in June 1989 but the same was given to him after about nine months i.e., on 13.3.1990 when the price of Maruti Car had increased by Rs. 15,000. THE respondent claimed the difference between the price prevailing on the date and the date of actual delivery of the car. He further alleged that his priority number was unjustly changed by the petitioner and hence he was compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000. In the appeal filed by the complainant/appellant the complainant prayed for refund of Rs. 15,000, Rs. 50,000 towards compensation and Rs. 500 as costs.

THE District Forum, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan dismissed the complaint on the ground of suppression of material facts and holding that the vehicle was delivered as per seniority, on the basis of receipt of FDR. The State Commission in his order dated 30.7.2002 directed the respondent, Maruti Udyog Ltd. to refund a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the appellant with interest @ 12% p.a. for the period between 1.6.1989 and 15.3.1990.

The petitioner, Maruti Udyog Ltd. aggrieved by the State Commission''s order filed the present petition and submits that they did not change the priority number of the respondent, hence, they were not liable to make a refund of Rs. 15,000 to the respondent. They further submit that as per the receipt issued to the respondent, no priority number was allotted to him.

WE heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the records. It is seen from the records that the complainant/respondent received petitioner''s letter dated 9.3.1990 for submission of F.D.R. but the same was deposited on 28.3.1990. It is evident that the delay in the delivery of car is due to late submission of F.D.R. by the respondent and the car delivered in the serial in which F.D.Rs. were received. Initial allotment after the minimum deposit is not a priority number. Seniority of booking started only after the receipt of F.D.R. WE do not find any deficiency of service by the petitioner in this case as alleged by the respondent. Hence, we allow the petition and dismiss the order of the State Commission. Revision Petition allowed