Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs MANORAMA GUPTA

HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

IN this case, the complainant, Smt. Manorama Gupta wanted to purchase a Maruti Car and accordingly she deposited the booking amount of Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing a Maruti Car with the authorised dealer of Maruti Udogy Ltd. i.e., M/s. Radhika Automobiles. It was submitted that according to the terms and conditions, on deposit of Rs. 25,000/- bookings would be accepted for priority numbers and selection for any city in proportion to the bookings received for that city would be made by pseudo ran dam number. Other applications would be rejected. For the rejected applications, the booking deposit would be refunded to customers within three months of the closing date of the booking and no interest would be due in such cases. The customers were also informed that it was expected that allotment cards/allotment advice against accepted booking would be sent by Maruti Udyog Ltd. to the dealers by the end of March, 1990. The dealers would further post those to the customers. If they do not hear from the dealer by the end of May, 1990 or find any error in the allotment card, they were directed to contact the dealer immediately. It is evident that according to the aforesaid terms of the contract that in case of any irregularity, dealer was required to be contacted. The complainant alleged that the complainant wrote letters to the respondent No. 2 demanding refund of the booking amount to the applicant. She also claimed that number of times she contacted M/s. Radhika Automobiles Ltd. But, they did not give any satisfactory reply on the pretext that they did not keep any record and she was asked that she should contract Maruti Udyog Ltd. and they would refund her booking amount.

It may be mentioned that according to the terms and conditions, M/s. Radhika Automobiles were supposed to be contacted and the complainant contacted them but they did not give any appropriate reply rather asked them to contact M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. It may also be mentioned that the complainant sought the information in relation to the booking amount from O.P. No. 2 and then O.P. No. 2 had then written a letter dated 31st December, 1999 to the complainant for getting booking cancelled by sending the priority card for cancellation of booking to the O.P. No. 2.

FURTHER, during the course of proceeding before the State Commission it transpired that the refund order was not sent to the applicant/complainant in terms of Clause 19 of the terms and conditions but to the respondent dealer. But even the dealer had not encashed the same. The petitioner was directed to produce the record of the bank to show that the amount had been withdrawn or to produce receipt. The respondent/petitioner had failed to place the material on record to show that the amount was withdrawn by the appellant or it was paid by the authorised dealer after withdrawal of the same to the respondent/complainant Thus, it is proved that amount had not been paid. As regards the delay, cause of action would arise when the refund is denied. In view of the fact that the dealer was directed to be contacted in terms of Clause 18 it would indicate that whatever may be the relationship between the petitioner and M/s. Radhika Automobiles irrespective of the agreement between the dealer and M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. they allowed the dealer to act as an agent as well on behalf of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. impliedly in terms of Sections 186 and 187 of the Contract Act. This lends relevance and legitimacy to the correspondence between M/s. Radhika Automobiles as if all this correspondence was with and on behalf of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Supposing for the sake of arguments it should have been claimed within three years from the present petitioner and in view of the peculiar facts that the respondent/complainant was directed to contact the dealer and dealer was unable to give proper response and wrote letter in the year 1999 to the complainant, the cause of action itself would not arise before the petitioner informed that they had already sent the refund order No. 415867 without disclosing date and the person to whom it had been sent. Firstly, it is within time and secondly, if the State Commission had impliedly condoned the alleged delay, we think that it would not be a fit case to interfere in the impugned order for petitioner has failed to establish that they had made the payment of Rs. 25,000/-. The order passed by the learned State Commission directing the payment of Rs. 25,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a. w.e.f. 1.11.2001 and not from 1990 with Rs. 1,000/- as costs is appropriate and just, we neither think it proper nor there is any reason to interfere with the impugned order on the ground of technical plea of limitation and peculiar facts and circumstances of this particular case.

THE Revision Petition is disposed accordingly. Revision disposed of.