Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs V.M.GOEL

BY this order we propose to decide four petitions. In fact there are two sets of revision petitions. Revision Petition Nos. 974 of 2001 and 985 of 2001 are against a common order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and have been filed by the manufacturer and dealer of Maruti vehicles. The other set of petition of Revision Petition Nos. 447 of 1997 and 448 of 1997 is by the manufacturer and dealer of Maruti vehicle. Revision Petition No. 974/2001 and 985/2001

RESPONDENT No. 1-complainant Goel booked a Maruti Standard A.C. Car with M/s. Alfa Automobiles, the dealer of the car, manufactured by Maruti Udyog Ltd. The car was booked on 23.10.1990. At the time of registration Goel paid Rs. 35,000/- as fee for booking. It was on 12.10.1990 that without giving any prior intimation to Goel he was asked to deposit full cost of the car which amounted to Rs. 1,32,889.52. He was required to deposit this amount by 15.12.1990 and in default to face cancellation of the booking. On receipt of the letter Goel went to the show-room of dealer and met its manager, Bhupinder Dutt. He was assured that car would be delivered within 6 to 8 weeks after 15.12.1990. Goel says he did tell Dutt that he will have to get Rs. 1.00 lakh from the Bank at high rate of interest. After getting the assurance Goel says he arranged the money from the market on interest which he deposited with the dealer on 15.12.1990. However, car was not delivered to him as promised and it was delivered only on 11.7.1991. At the time of delivery, however, Goel was asked to pay further sum of Rs. 18,524/- on account of increase in the price of the vehicle. Complaining deficiency in service Goel filed complaint before the District Forum. Apart from the claim of Rs. 18,524/-, he claimed some other amounts which presently do not concern us. Both the opposite parties raised preliminary objections questioning the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and that there was no delay in the delivery of the car as Goel was told that six to eight weeks'' time of delivery was only the expected time and further the car was delivered to Goel as per his seniority. District Forum held that there was deficiency in service and directed the opposite parties to refund to Goel Rs. 18,524/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded to Goel for delay in delivery of the car. He was also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

Aggrieved both the manufacturer and dealer filed appeals before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which dismissed the same with costs.

STILL feeling aggrieved both the manufacturer and the dealer have filed these separate petitions. When the opposite parties got the full amount of the cost of the car and promised period of delivery was six to eight weeks there is clearly deficiency in service in not delivering the car within a period of six to eight weeks and car was delivered only when cost had increased. Six to eight weeks period would never mean six to eight months. It is a known fact that in 1990 it was a seller market for Maruti. Demand of full price before even the car was ready for delivery would itself amount to unfair trade practice. For having got the full price of the cost of the car as on 15.12.1990, opposite parties could not demand further increase in cost if delivery was not made within six to eight weeks. When the complainant was promised that he would be given delivery of the car within six to eight weeks, he could not imagine that delivery could be delayed for a period of six months. It has been rightly held by the State Commission that as far as Goel was concerned he did perform his part of the agreement and failure was on the part of the opposite parties. There has been thus concurrent finding that there has been deficiency in service inasmuch as opposite parties failed to deliver the car within the promised period. We do not find any error of jurisdiction otherwise for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition Nos. 447/1997 and 448 of 1997 In this case it is the Sudhir Gautam who was the complainant. Facts are almost similar. There has been delay of seven months in delivery of the car. It has been held concurrently that delay has not been explained by the opposite parties. It is not material as far as complainant is concerned that at the time of delivery of the car to him seniority was maintained and that car was delivered to the persons as per the dates of their respective booking. The question which arose before the Forum below was that when the petitioners got full price of the car and told the complainant that expected time of delivery was six to eight weeks, could be extended to six to seven months. In this case complainant deposited Rs. 1,41,288/- on 3.1.1991 with M/s. Vipul Motors Ltd., dealer and at the time of delivery of the car on 8.8.1991 complainant was asked to pay further amount of Rs. 53,432/-. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed payment of Rs. 53,432/- with interest from the date of deposit till payment. There was no order of any payment of further amount or cost to the complainant. Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on appeal filed by both the dealer and the manufacturer upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeals and was of the view that the payment of full amount at the time of booking was not by way of advance or earnest money but was for cost of the car. State Commission also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that overcharging of the price by the dealer by withholding delivery of the vehicle amounted to unfair trade practice which was to be discouraged and the buyer was to be compensated by the Courts. We are however, not considering the question of any unfair trade practice on this account in the present case to hold that delivery was intentionally delayed to get higher cost as there is no evidence to that effect. Again there has been concurrent finding and we do not find any jurisdictional error for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

WE may note that while considering these petitions, we drew strength from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Motors Ltd. v. Dr. P.K. Jain, VII (1999) SLT 115=1999 (6) SCC 548. All these petitions (Revision Petition Nos. 974/2001, 985/2001, 447/1997 and 448/1997) are dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- in each set of revision petitions. Petitions dismissed with costs.