AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE brief facts of the instant complaint are that the complainant being a Government of India enterprises incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 had placed an order for the purchase of one ISZ Ambassador Car with the O.P. No. 1 vide purchase order dated 13.2.1995 and had deposited Rs. 2,48,650/- with O.P. No. 1 being the price of the vehicle as on the date of the said purchase order. In terms of the purchase order dated 13.2.1995 the O.P. No. 1 stipulated that the delivery of the vehicle would be made within 20-24 weeks to the complainant at Delhi. In the meanwhile there was a revision of the prices and the complainant also deposited the additional amount of Rs. 12,028/- on 4.5.1995 as per requirement. THEreafter also O.P. failed to deliver the vehicle and as such after waiting for a considerable period the complainant cancelled the purchase order vide letter dated 5.9.1995 and requested the O.P. to refund the deposited amount to them at the earliest. THE O.P. in order to cover its lapses informed the complainant vide letter dated 27.9.1995 that the car had reached the workshop of the dealer M/s. Krishna Automobiles Limited for free delivery inspection by the complainant. THE complainant despite the inordinate delay and being interested in purchasing the car went to inspect the vehicle which was found to be totally substandard and filled with rusted components besides several other defects, which were duly pointed out to the dealer of the complainant. Thus in the circumstances the complainant had no alternative but to purchase FIAT 118 NE from M/s. Prem Nath Motors Limited after paying an amount of Rs. 2,67,334/-. Since the O.Ps. failed to refund the deposited amount to the complainant, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint praying for the refund of the said amount together with interest and compensation totalling to Rs. 5,08,663/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% p.a. as well as cost of the proceedings.
THE defence of the O.Ps. in its reply/written version is that O.P. No. 1 situated in purchase order dated 13.2.1995 that the delivery of the car booked by the complainant would be given within 20-24 weeks. However, subsequently there was a revision in price for which an additional proforma invoice dated 27.4.1995 was raised for the amount of Rs. 12,028/- which was remitted by the complainant only on 4.5.1995. THEreafter the complainant had been duly informed that it would take about 6-8 months for the delivery of the car from the date of payment. As such there was no delay in delivering the car to the complainant, rather on being offered to take delivery of the car the complainant after inspection refused to accept the same. THErefore, it was only on the sale of the car that the money could be refunded to the complainant and as such there being no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. no interest on the deposited amount was payable by the O.Ps. in the circumstances. The complainant filed a rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and denying of the written statements. Both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits. On behalf of the complainant the affidavit of Shri B.K. Gupta, Dy. General Manager of the complainant was filed whereas the affidavit of Shri Ram Rattan Damani, Vice-President (Internal Audit and Legal Deptt.) of the O.Ps. was filed.
We have carefully perused the evidence and documents/material on record as well as have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. is writ large on the face of it inasmuch as even after receiving the full price of the car on 13.2.1995 and thereafter the additional amount of Rs. 12,028/- in pursuance of the revision of price of the car on 4.5.1995, the O.Ps. failed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant till 27.9.1995 though the invoice/purchase order dated 13.2.1995 specifically states that the delivery of the car would be made within 20-24 weeks. Even when the complainant was called upon to inspect the car for purposes of delivery, the same was found to be defective with rusted parts and other defects and as such the complainant had no choice but to purchase another car. There is no denial of the fact that the car sought to be delivered to the complainant was a defective car, having several defects as well as rusted components, that is why the O.Ps. had undertaken to refund the price to the complainant subject to sale of the said car. The price of the car was refunded to the complainant only on 16.10.1997 after the present complaint had been filed. In the aforesaid circumstances in our view the complainant is entitled to interest on the principle amount of Rs. 2,60,678/- @ 9% p.a. together with Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by him as well as Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.
THE present complaint filed by the complaint, stands disposed of in above terms. Complaint disposed of.