Prem Nath Motors Ltd. vs PHOOL CHAND SHARMA

THE respondent deposited Rs. 5,000 with the appellant towards booking charges for the purchase of Delux model car on 14.12.1989. On account of having not been informed about the maturity of the booking and non-refund of the amount deposited by the respondent the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 4.12.1996 directed to pay interest from 14.12.1989 to 11.5.1993 @ 18% p.a. and also pay interest on Rs. 20,726 the excess price paid by the respondent towards price of the car from 25.4.1993 to 30.6.1993 along with compensation and cost of Rs. 2,000. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are like this: The respondent had deposited Rs. 5,000 with the appellant on 14.12.1989 as booking charges as per practice prevalent at the relevant time. However, the respondent was not informed of the maturity of his booking and the respondent asked for return of his amount under letter dated 22.6.1992 but no refund was given. The respondent however contacted the appellant and he was informed that he could buy a car by paying a balance amount of Rs. 1,59,510 and the respondent accordingly deposited this amount with the appellant on 13.12.1993. The respondent got a car on 11.5.1993 (sic. 1992). The amount deposited by the respondent was in excess by Rs. 20, 726 which was refunded to the respondent in the month of June, 1993. The respondent claimed interest on this amount also. Admittedly, the car was to be delivered within the stipulated period of 8-10 weeks from the date of deposit of its price. According to the appellant delay was occasioned because the amount on receipt was remitted to the manufacturer at its Bombay Office on which the car was allotted and registered and thereafter the car was brought to the place where delivery was sought and this took little more time. There is no dispute that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards the booking amount on 14.12.1989 and no intimation was given to the respondent that the car cannot be delivered to him within the stipulated period. The respondent kept waiting for more than three years and asked for refund of the amount but it was not given and he got the deposit adjusted against the price of the car paid on 11.5.1993. So much so the price prevalent at the time of booking was less than the amount deposited by the respondent and, therefore, refund of Rs. 20,726 was sought.

Deficiency in service is writ large on the face and no provider of service is supposed to give false assurance to the consumer about the date of delivery of the car and then keep him waiting for years and forcing him to pay the enhanced price. In terms of Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 consumer is entitled to the amount as compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party. However, interest awarded by the District Forum is not only on the higher side but also not awardable in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Interest is awardable if there is term of contract between the parties or if there were strong equitable grounds. In view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, respondent is entitled to compensation as to the loss or injury suffered by him instead of interest.

WE allow the appeal partly by directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000 which shall be inclusive of the cost of litigation. This amount shall be paid within one month. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties, free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter, the file be consigned to the Record Room. Appeal partly allowed.