Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs RANI AGARWAL

WHETHER M/s Maruti Udyog Limited are obliged to pay only the contracted rate of interest on the prompt refund of the deposits for the booking of its vehicle, is the solitary narrow question in this appeal.

IN view of the above the facts and merits may be noticed with the utmost brevity relevant to the primal question. The Respondent in her somewhat cryptic complaint had alleged that she had booked one Maruti car on the 31st of October, 1986 and deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- through a bank draft as the initial deposit according to the terms and conditions. However, it was vaguely averred that the said booking was cancelled in or about the year December 1987 and the appellants were requested to send the deposited amount alongwith interest, but despite several telephonic reminders it was not so done. Consequently, interest @ 24% with half yearly rest was claimed, as relief. The complaint was presented on the 8th of November, 1991. In the exhaustive written statement preferred by the appellant, a number of preliminary objections were taken to which reference is unnecessary. On merits the firm stand taken was that the complainant had not sent any cancellation request in 1987, as alleged and that the only communication with regard thereto was received in September 199 land in prompt response thereto warrant No. 830217 dated the 11th of November, 1991 for Rs. 13,949/- was immediately forwarded to the dealers M/s. Aganall Traders Ltd. for onwards transmission to the complainant. The latter by her letter of the 22nd of November, 1991 acknowledged the receipt of the refund and accepted it under protest by merely a Urging that the interest had not been correctly calculated (Annexure 8). The firm plea was that according to the terms and conditions expressly spelt out in the booking form interest only at 7% was livable and the same had been duly tendered and accepted. The appellants placed on the record a host of relevant documents, the authenticity of which was not challenged. These included the only written communication of the cancellation by the respondent on the 25th of September, 1991 as also the communication dispatching the refund warrant and the acknowledgement thereof by the complainant on the 22nd of Nov. 1991. A replication was filed on behalf of the complainant without and in any way specifically controverting the factual stand taken on behalf of the appellant.

The District Forum in terms noticed that the appellant had refunded a sum of Rs. 13,949.05 P by calculating the interest at 7%, but notwithstanding the same, the complainant was adamant on requesting the award of interest @ 24% with half yearly rests. It was noticed that the solitary question surviving was the rate of interest leviable in the context of condition No. 2 of the terms and condition of the booking. However, relying on some of the Government of India''s guidelines with regard to payment of interest in this context and further adding a percentage thereto it was directed that the appellant should pay interest @ 18% on the deposit. 4(a). Mr. Parmod Kumar, the learned Counsel for the appellant had frontally assailed the view of the District Forum and highlighted the ramifications of the matter for his concern. It was particularly pointed out that it stood fully established that the respondent had sent the letter for the cancellation of the booking only on the 25 th of September, 1991 and with the utmost promptitude the refund pay warrant was despatched to the appellants agent M/s. Aganall Traders Ltd. on the 14th of November, 1991. It was the case that there being not the least delay in the matter the appellants could not be burdened with any penal interest and the respondent was fully bound by the terms and conditions voluntarily agreed to by her at the time of booking.

BEFORE appraising the aforesaid meritorious submissions it is perhaps apt to clear certain factual cobwebs which have arisen in the case. It would appear from the record that the respondent in her cryptic complaint had made a vague and wandering suggestion that the booking of the car was cancelled in or about December 1987 and some telephonic reminders were made. However, there is not even a tittle of evidence to support this unfounded suggestion. From the documentary evidence, it stands established beyond doubt that the only written cancellation was made by the respondent vide her communication dated 25th of November, 1991. A photostat copy thereof was placed on the record and the authenticity of the same was neither challenged before the District Forum nor before us. From the date a foresaid within less than two months the appellants after complying with all the formalities despatched the refund pay warrant for onward transmission to the respondent as early as the 14th of November, 1991. In any case the same was duly received and expressly acknowledged by the respondent on the 22nd of November, 1991. Taking into account the requisite formalities for the return of the deposit after cancellation, there is thus not the least delay in refunding the amount to the complainant. This aspect seems to have been over-looked or has missed consideration by the District Forum and it apparently fell into the error of assuming that the booking had been cancelled in 1987. This fact or seems to have somewhat warped the whole appraisal of the case by the Forum below. Having clarified the factual aspect, it is apt to notice the relevant terms and conditions and the guidelines which govern the issue herein. What is of patent significance is Clause No. 2 of the terms and conditions of sale admittedly governing the transaction betwixt the appellants and the respondent. This bears notice in extenso : - Clause : 2 "Maruti would credit to the account of each customer interest on the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- per vehicle at 7% compounded annually applicable for period of the deposit. Interest would be calculated from the first day of the month following the month in which the deposit has been made and will be computed upto the last day of the month preceding the month in which a refund is made, or the car is delivered/despatched to the customer. No interest will be paid if the total period of deposit as calculated above is less than 12 months. The interest, if due will be payable at the time of delivery of the car or cancellation of booking."

APART from the explicit term aforesaid, the relevant guidelines issued by the Ministry of Industry of the Government of India with regard to the deployment of funds taken by the Company as advance for booking of the vehicle also deserve notice. Guidelines 6 and 7 are in the under-mentioned terms : "In the case of an accepted application, the manufacturer should refund the advance deposit within 60 days of receiving the cancellations request from the applicant 7 : In case a manufacturer fails to refund the advance money within the stipulated period of 60 days mentioned in para 6, he should pay a penal interest of 5% over and above the normal rate of interest for the period of delay."

In applying the aforesaid terms and conditions as also the Governmental guidelines, we have to bear in mind that within the consumer jurisdiction one is confined to grant relief only in the event of a patent deficiency in the service hired by the consumer. A reference to the definition of ''deficiency'' in Clause (g) of Section 2(1) would indicate that this has relevance to a standard which is either required to be maintained under law or has been in terms undertaken to be performed/Clear enough, herein there is no legal or statutory mandate governing the situation. Consequently, the matter has to be focused on what has been undertaken or contracted expressly by the parties with regard to such a service. Once that is so, it is evident from Condition No. 2 quoted earlier that the rate of interest on the deposit was in terms agreed to be at 7% only and not more. In abiding or insisting upon the contractual terms a party cannot possibly be held guilty of a deficiency in service. This apart even the Governmental guidelines on the point visualized a normal rate of interest and a penal rate of interest with regard to such refunds. If the refund is made within 60 days of receiving the cancellation request from the consumer-applicant, the rate of interest has to be the normal rate which in the contest means the contracted rate. The penal rate of interest of an additional 5% over and above the same is attracted only where there has been patent delay in refund beyond the stipulated period of 60 days. This aspect again seems to have been missed or the relevant guidelines misread by the District Forum. Once it is factually found as above that herein the refund was made within 60 days, no question of any penal interest over and above the contracted rate of interest at 7% would arise. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the affirmative. It is held that the appellant Maruti Udyog Ltd. are obliged to pay only the contracted rate of interest on the refund of deposits after cancellation within 60 days thereof.

ONCE it is concluded as above, it is manifest that the present appeal must succeed and is allowed. We are consequently constrained to set aside the order under appeal and dismiss the complaint preferred by the respondent. Even though, the appellant''s Counsel had pressed for costs, we are disinclined to burden the respondent-consumer therewith. Appeal allowed.