SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN vs Hero Honda Motors Ltd.

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Jaipur dated 13.5.1992 whereby his Complaint Case No. 859/90 was dismissed.

IT may be mentioned that the respondents remained absent despite notice. However respondent No. 1 sent a reply to the appeal by post. We have, therefore, heard the appellant and have perused the record. The complainant-appellant had booked two Hero Honda Motor Cycles and he was assigned priority numbers 3101 and 3497. The complaint was filed by him with respect to the motor cycle booked by him to which priority number 3101 had been assigned. So far as the motor cycle booked under priority number 3497 was concerned, the complainant had already obtained refund of the amount deposited by him in that respect. The complainant''s case was that no intimation about the allotment of motor cycle booked under priority number 3101 was given to him. When he came to know that motor cycles are being supplied to other persons whose priority numbers were subsequent to the complainant, he contacted respondent No. 2 and asked for supply of motor cycle at a price which was in force when the allotment of motor cycle had become due. It has been stated that respondent No. 2 told to the complainant that motor cycle can be given at then prevalent price for which the complainant was not prepared. The complainant therefore filed the complaint praying that the opposite parties-respondents be directed to supply motor cycle to him as against his booking number 3101 at the price which was in force when his priority became due.

The version of the opposite parties was that intimation of the allotment was sent to the complainant by respondent No. 2 under certificate of posting dated 10.3.1988. However, the complainant did not deposit the money with respondent No. 2 within the required time. Respondent No. 2 had also published an advertisement in Rajasthan Patrika on 14.4.1989 about immediate delivery of the motor cycle but the complainant did not approach him for its delivery. The District Forum held that respondent No. 2 had sent intimation regarding allotment of motor cycle to 35 persons including the complainant on 10.3.1988 and had also published advertisement in Rajasthan Patrika on 14.4.1989. It is also held that the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint as to on what date he contacted respondent No. 2 for the first time. It was therefore held that the complainant was not entitled to get motor cycle at the rate which was in force on the above date of allotment i.e. 10th March, 1988.

THE opposite parties had proved by producing the certificate of posting that intimation has been sent to the complainant on 10.3.1988 regarding allotment of motor cycle alongwith other allottees. THEre was no stipulation that intimation of allotment will be sent by registered post. THE complainant did not deposit the balance price of the motor cycle despite intimation having been sent to the complainant on 10.3.1988 regarding allotment by respondent No. 2. In such circumstances, the complainant was no entitled to get the motor cycle at the price which was in force on 10.3.1988. It is also correct that the complainant did not specify the date on which he contacted respondent No. 2 to take motor cycle. Respondent No. 2 was justified in demanding price of the motor cycle which was in force at the time when the complainant contacted respondent No. 2 for the purpose because the complainant had not contacted respondent No. 2 in March, 1988 when intimation was sent to him regarding allotment. It may also be stated that it was a case where the complainant alleged that the motor cycle booked by him as not delivered to him despite the fact that his booking had matured. It is not a case of defective goods. The complainant alleged breach of contract for which a remedy may in a Civil Court and not under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For this reason as well the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY this appeal has no force in it and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.