SUBODH NIGAM (DEAD) THORUGH LRS vs MARUTI UDYOG LTD.

In this revision petition filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act''), there is challenge to order dated 06.09.2007, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow (for short, ''State Commission'') in Appeal No.1930/2007.

Shri Subodh Nigam (since deceased)/Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur (for short, ''District Forum''), stating that in year 1985, Respondent/Opposite Party had offered to supply Maruti Car and as such he deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the booking advance with the respondent. Respondent issued the allotment card/number in respect of the said booking. Since, respondent was unable to supply the car, vide its letter dated 13.02.2004 respondent decided to refund the amount of advance with interest if the complainant so request. The complainant applied for refund of the booking amount but was unable to provide the original booking allotment card and original acknowledgment booking application, as the same were not traceable as matter was quite old. In lieu of the original documents, complainant submitted an indemnity bond affidavit along with documents available with him. However, respondent did not refund the deposited amount. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, complainant sought refund of advance of Rs.10,000/- and interest thereon being Rs.29,500/- and future interest @ 15% per annum with cost.

The consumer complaint was resisted by the respondent. In its written reply, respondent took the stand that complainant was negligent in retaining the original documents for which it cannot be held responsible. The allotment card is a valuable and important document in order to assess genuineness of booking in favour of the individual. Therefore, it is not bound to refund the deposited amount along with interest, in the absence of original documents and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

District Forum vide its order dated 31.07.2007 disposed of the complaint with the direction that complainant will deposit the original receipt/allotment card with the respondent company and thereafter, respondent would refund the entire booking amount of Rs.10,000/- with 10% simple interest from 01.01.1986 till the date of actual payment.

Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, complainant filed appeal before the State Commission, which observed that money so deposited by the complainant could not be refunded, unless he surrenders the original paper and dismissed the appeal.

During pendency of the present revision, original complainant died and his legal representative has been brought on record.

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, that in terms of letter dated 27.10.2004, complainant submitted the indemnity bond affidavit along with other documents as sought for by the respondent. Therefore, respondent is liable to refund the amount along with interest.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the absence of original documents, no refund can be made. Thus, there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by both the fora below.

There is no dispute, that the complainant had deposited the booking amount of Rs.10,000/- with the respondent. It is also not in dispute, that complainant had misplaced the original allotment card as well as original acknowledgment slip. In the absence of non-production of the original documents, the complainant as per letter dated 27.10.2004 sent by the respondent, had furnished the indemnity bond. In spite of furnishing the indemnity bond by the complainant, the respondent failed to refund the booking amount. Thus, deficiency on the part of respondent is there.

However, we cannot loose sight of the fact, that complainant was also negligent and equally deficient, when he had misplaced the original allotment card as well as original acknowledgment slip. Therefore, it is a case of contributory negligence on the part of both parties. Under these circumstances and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the fitness of the things, that respondent refund the sum of Rs.10,000/- only as deposited by the original complainant, to his legal heir within three months from today. The orders passed by the fora below stand modified accordingly.

With these observations, present revision petition stand disposed of.

Parties to bear their own costs.