O.P.GUPTA vs MODERN AUTOMOBILES

THE unsuccessful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar dismissing his complaint. Since we are firmly of the view that the said order deserves affirmance, the facts and merits may be noticed with utmost brevity.

THE appellant had booked one Maruti 800 Standard Car with the respondents on the 14th of April, 1992 and deposited a draft of even date for Rs.1,62,086/- being the price of the said car on that date. However, a clear and category undertaking was signed by him to the effect that the price of the vehicle prevailing on the date of delivery would be payable and no responsibility would lie on the respondents in the event of any increase in the price for whatsoever reason. On the appellant''s own showing, he received a letter dated 17th of August, 1992 from the respondents requesting him to collect the Maruti vehicle of white colour forthwith on completing the minor for-malities. However, he decline to take the said delivery and instead made the following endorsement on the said letter on the 19th of August, 1992: "I shall take delivery positively on the 1st of September, 1992 and not before this date as was made clear while booking the vehicle."

Meanwhile the price of the vehicle was notified to be increased with effect from the 25th of Augsust, 1992. THE appellant, however, took delivery of the car on the 10th of September, 1992 on making the payment of the prevailing price. However, he later preferred the complaint seeking a refund of the enhanced amount from the respondents. In stoutly defending the complaint, the respondents admitted the factual position including the despatch of the letter dated the 17th of August, 1992 unreservedly offering the delivery of the car. It was pointed out that the appellant visited their premises on the 19th of August, 1992 and refused to take delivery of the car and they were left with no option, but to deliver the same to the next waiting customer. Another vehicle was then offered to the appellant when the next delivery was received. But meanwhile, the price had increased and the same was willingly paid by the appellant and taken the delivery of the vehicle. The categorical stand was that as per the terms and conditions expressly agreed to, the. prevailing price had to be paid on the date of the delivery and further that the appellant was himself responsible for the inevitable delay because of his refusal to take delivery earlier.

The District Forum on the basis of the materials before it came to a categorical finding that the appellants had himself declined to accept the vehicle when promptly offered by the respondent and further that he could not impose a condition unilaterally upon them with regard to the subsequent delivery of the vehicle.

MR. Suman Jain, the learned Counsel for the appellant had merely attempted to argue that the appellant had firmly imposed a condition that he would receive delivery on the 1st of September, 1992 at the old price. However, when confronted with the admitted endorsement of the appellant on the letter dated the 19th of August, 1992 which has not the least reference to any such condition, he could not pursue the matter any further. In a judgment of affirmance, it is unnecessary to tread the same ground again. It suffices to say that we unhesitatingly concur with the firm finding of the District Forum that the appellant had himself refused to take delivery of the car, when it was offered to him in terms, and further that he could not unilaterally imposed any condition with regard to the same. It further calls for notice that even on the appellant''s own showing, he had sought delivery on the 1st of September, 1992, but before even that date the price had been enhanced on the 29th of August, 1992. Consequently, not the least grievance survived on his score.

BEFORE parting with this order, we may notice that Mr. Jain with great fairness had ultimately conceded that he could not advance the appellant''s case to any meaningful purpose. For the fore-going reasons, this appeal must fail and is dismissed. However, we decline to burden the appellant with any costs. Appeal dismissed.