Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs V.S. MANTCHALA

THE opposite party appeals.

THE case of the complainant was as follows: He booked a Maruti Car 800 CC on 22,2.1987 by paying Rs. 10,000/- and he was given an allotment number. THE vehicle was not delivered to him nor was he given any intimation about the availability of the car. He therefore, approached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite party to deliver the car as booked without any loss of time. The opposite party has pleaded as follows: The sale of Maruti Car has become free in the year 1990. Therefore the booking has become infructuous. The company has issued public notices inviting those who booked the vehicles to take delivery of the vehicle on payment of the balance price. The complainant has failed to do so.

In the course of argument before the District Forum as admitted by both the Counsels present here, the complainant accepted for the refund of money with appropriate interest. Therefore, the opposite party was directed to refund Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest at the rate payable from time to time.

THE opposite party''s contention here is that the rate of interest at the time of deposit of money payable to prospective purchasers was only 7% and that it has been increased to 8% thereafter and that the complainant would be entitled to interest only at 7%. We have only in this appeal to determine the rate of interest payable. In this case no individual notice has been given to the complainant who has deposited the money, who has issued a receipt, given allotment number and whose name and address therefore were available in the register of the company. Public notice may be resorted to, but for those who were not touched by the public notice and who therefore have not responded to it. A an individual notice is a must in a case like the present one. In failing to give such notice, the opposite party has been keeping the money of the complainant for no purpose. The complainant could have as well asked for interest at Bank rate. His prayer was rather (sic.). He prayed only for interest paid by the company.

ON the other side we fail to see why the complainant should not be paid interest payable from time to time on deposits by prospective purchasers and why he should be discriminated against. Even admitting that the rate of interest should be one fixed by the agreement between the parties, it has been seen that the agreement has come to an end in 1990 when the sale become free, and that the deposit was unnecessary and superfluous. The opposite party could have avoided altogether interest in tendering the money at that time, which it failed to do for reason best known to himself. We therefore do not see any merit in the appeal which is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.