SAINI MOTORS vs M.L. GUPTA AND COMPANY (REGD.)

DISTRICT Forum, Ludhiana on August 20, 1996 allowed complaint filed by M.L. Gupta and Company and directed the opposite party M/s. Saini Motors to pay interest on Rs. 1,90,000/- @ 18% per annum from October 6,1994 and at the same rate interest on Rs. 21,185.09 from April 19,1995 till payment. A further direction was given to refund a sum of Rs. 21,185.09. These amounts were ordered to be paid to the complainant M.L. Gupta and Company. This order has been challenged by the opposite party, Saini Motors, Ludhiana in this appeal.

ON October 6, 1994 M.L. Gupta and Company booked a Maruti A.C. car with the opposite party M/s. Saini Motors, Ludhiana. The entire amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- was paid against receipt. The complainant was not given the seniority number at the time of registration of the vehicle. But ultimately on September 19,1995 on charging additional amount of Rs. 21,185.09 the vehicle was delivered. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as on the date of delivery of the vehicle initially another vehicle was being allotted to the complainant which was received by the opposite party from the manufacturer before rise in the prices of the car. After such price was increased the complainant was delivered the vehicle, which was received after rise of the prices. In this manner, the opposite party jumped the seniority list already prepared in order to exploit the consumers. Particulars of the vehicle which was available with the opposite party and was not delivered were also given in the complaint. Refund of the excess amount and interest on the amount already charged was claimed as there was undue delay in delivering the car. Before the District Forum, version was submitted by the opposite party denying allegations of the complainant but without specifically mentioning anything about the other car particulars of which were given, which was available with the opposite party, but was not delivered. ON the evidence produced by the parties on affidavits and documents, the impugned order was passed. In appeal vide order dated September, 30, 1997 an opportunity was allowed to the appellant, the opposite party to produce additional affidavit supported by documents as to when Maruti car, Model MD 308, Chassis No. 741568, Engine No. 1117810 was received from Maruti Udyog by the opposite party alongwith Cash Memo of the sale of the aforesaid car to the buyer and the copy of the invoice sent by the Maruti Udyog to the dealer. In response of the aforesaid order, affidavit of Minakshi Saini, Partner of M/s. Saini Motors dated October 29, 1997 was produced accompanied by the relevant documents asked for. Another affidavit disputing the documents aforesaid has been filed by Pardeep Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. M.L. Gupta and Company. Specific reference is made to copy of the invoice submitted by Maruti Udyog to M/s. Saini Motors with respect to sending of the aforesaid vehicle to the dealer. Two things are pointed out with regard to the date of this invoice which is purporting to be dated 23.4.1995. As per the objection raised this date at two places in this invoice has been subsequently typed and is not the result of print out from the computer in which the entire invoice has been filled.

After hearing Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no implicit reliance can be placed on the affidavit of Minakshi Saini that the disputed vehicle was in fact received on April 23, 1995 vide invoice referred to above. The original of the same has not been produced and it is clear to the naked eye that the typewriter used for these two dates is clearly different than used for the body of the invoice. The typed date is with a manual typewriter whereas the entire body of the invoice is the result of computer print out including the entire figure work.

THIS mutilated invoice produced in response to the order passed by this Commission itself indicates the unfair trade practice adopted by the appellant, M/s. Saini Motors in the matter of over-charging the consumers in respect of vehicles, which were already available as sent by Maruti Udyog, before there was rise in the prices. The holding of such vehicles to wait for rise in the prices in order to get unlawful enrichment is writ large in the circumstances of the case. It may further be emphasised that in the written statement originally filed and the affidavit filed in support thereof conveniently no mention was made with respect to the particulars of the vehicle referred to above as to when the same was received and was ultimately sold to the complainant after Maruti Udyog had raised the prices of the car. The District Forum thus rightly came to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to refund of Rs. 21,185.09P. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that interest on the total amount deposited, Rs. 1,90,000/- was paid at the rate of 7% per annum as per agreement between the parties and there was no justification in allowing enhanced rate of interest to the complainant. There is force in this contention. Ordinarily the appellant was expected to deliver the vehicle as and when he received it from Maruti Udyog in accordance with the seniority of the consumers maintained. Since no specific date can be found from the material produced as to when the disputed vehicle was received by Saini Motors, the date of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant is considered the relevant date for payment of interest on the amount of Rs. 1,90,000/-. If some evidence has been produced by the complainant that such a vehicle was received by Saini Motors on a particular date by getting direct evidence from Maruti Udyog after such date interest @ 18% per annum could also be allowed. In the absence of any evidence regarding such date being determined the date of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant is considered relevant for determining the amount of interest payable. Thus, as per contract entered into between the parties M/s. M.L. Gupta and Company was rightly paid interest @ 7% on the sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-. To that extent the order of the District Forum requires modification and we order accordingly. As far as refund of Rs. 21,185.09 is concerned, as already held above, the complainant was entitled to this amount and he is also entitled to interest @18% per annum from April 19, 1995 till payment. This is a fit case where costs should have been allowed to the complainant though technically the appeal is partly allowed. M/s. M.L. Gupta and Company is allowed costs of litigation amounting to Rs. 2,000/-. The appeal is disposed of with the modification in the order of the District Forum as above. The directions be complied within one month from receipt of copy of this order. Appeal partly allowed.