R.K.AGGARWAL vs Premier Automobiles Ltd.

THE appellant had approached D.F.-II with a grievance about late delivery of car and for award of interest, compensation for mental agony and legal costs. On his complaint being dismissed by D.F.-II the complainant has come up in the present appeal.

THE facts of the case are that the appellant booked with respondent No. 2 a Premier Padmini car on 12.1.1993 and deposited Rs. 1,73,000/- as its price. THE understanding was that the delivery shall be made within four weeks. THE disputed facts are that as per respondent No. 2 the purchase price of the car in Bombay was less by more than Rs. 13,000/- compared to the price in Delhi. THE appellant, therefore, changed his mind to have delivery of the car in Delhi and placed a fresh order for delivery through Bombay. Delivery was ultimately made on 26.3.1993. THE respondents have stated that although they undertook to make delivery within four weeks, there were several constraints. Also as per order of the N.C. in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. T.N. Babu and Another, I (1993) CPJ 51 (NC)=1993 (1) CPR 148, a period of 10 to 12 weeks has been considered reasonable for delivery of car. Further 17 premier cars of different models were delivered to customers in January and February, 1993 who had booked the car. THE appellant, however, found out that it was cheaper by Rs. 13,500/to have the car from Bombay. He, therefore, declined to take delivery from Delhi. Meanwhile there was a cut in excise duty also in the new budget and the appellant was benefitted by Rs. 30,000/-. THEre was thus no deficiency on their part. The appellant hotly contested the claim that any offer of delivery of car from Delhi had been made to him. It was only because of the delay being caused that he made a fresh order for delivery from Bombay.

We have gone through the record of the case and also the submissions made by the appellant in person and Mr. S.C. Chadha authorised agent for the respondent No. 2. It is un-disputed fact that the respondent had undertaken to supply the car in four weeks. It had explained the difficulty to the appellant and suggested him to wait for a few days. Records show that delivery of vehicle was made to other exporters who had got themselves registered with respondent around the same time as appellant. We have not been shown any specific reason why respondent would not have made the delivery of car to the appellant as soon as vehicles were available. It is an admitted fact that to have a car from Bombay was fairly cheaper and the appellant did place a fresh order for the same. Though the date of placement of the order could not be furnished, it therefore, stands to reason that the appellant waited for delivery of car to be made through Bombay. Even so, observation N.C. of 10 to 12 weeks being reasonable for delivery of cars has also to be borne in mind. In the circumstances we do not feel persuaded to set aside the order of D.F.-II. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties, and also to D.F.-II. Appeal dismissed. ___________