PROF.A.C.JOSEPH vs POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES LIMITED

THE appellant is the complainant in O.P. No. 896/97 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ernakulam. THE complainant alleged before the District Forum that he booked a Maruthi Omni E. Van through the first opposite party on 6.1.1997 paying Rs. 1,60,450/-. THE vehicle was delivered to him on 18.4.1997 : In the meanwhile there was an increase in the price by Rs. 16,459/- which he had to pay. His grievance is another person who booked such a vehicle later than the complainant through another dealer could get delivery earlier to the complainant. On account of the deliberate delay committed by the first opposite party for forwarding the amount collected by him on the date of booking with the object of getting higher amount. THErefore he alleged deficiency of service and wanted relief. First and second opposite party filed separate version. THE main contention raised by them is, there was no agreement that the vehicle would be delivered within stipulated period. As to the case that another person got delivery earlier is not known to the opposite parties and is not relevant. THEy maintained that the complainant was bound to pay the prevailing price at the time of invoicing of the vehicle and they have received only that amount. THEy wanted dismissal of the complaint. THE complainant produced Exts. A1 to A9 and on behalf of the opposite party Exs. B1 to B2 were produced. District forum on a consideration of the said material came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove deficiency of service, on that finding the complaint was dismissed.

THE appellant who appeared in person sought to maintain that what he alleged in the complaint is true. Wilful delay was committed by the first opposite party and therefore it is a case where he is entitled to the relief prayed for. THE District Forum in the impugned order states, that the complainant has no case that there was any stipulation as to the time within which the delivery of the vehicle has to be made. THE complainant has also no case that he is not bound to pay the price prevailing on the date of invoice. Whereas booking was on 6.1.1997 the vehicle was delivered on 18.4.1997, the District Forum is of the view, that it cannot be said that the delay is unreasonable. At the instance of the complainant certain documents were called for, those documents also were relied on. THE cheque presented by the complainant dated 4.1.1997 was despatched to the second opposite party on 7.1.1997 and as per Ext. Al booking order it is seen that the cheque was handed over by the complainant on 6.1.1997. THEre is no delay in despatch of the cheque also is supported by the aforesaid material. It is not possible to agree when it is said that delay was caused intentionally. THE view taken by the district Forum being consistent with material before it, we are unable to find that the conclusion reached by the District Forum is in any way faulty. We see no merit in the appeal. THE appeal fails and hence is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.