TRAVEL PROMOTION BUREAU PVT. LTD. vs CLASSIC MOTORS LTD.

APPELLANT is engaged in the business of travel promotion and had given its vehicle for repairs to the respondent. Respondent raised a bill of Rs. 29,821 on 22nd December, 1996. APPELLANT asked for certain rectification of the bill as it pointed out certain discrepancies, for instance parking charges at Rs. 200 were charged instead of Rs. 100 per day. Instead of rectifying further bill was raised for Rs. 44,809.49 vide letter 20th March, 1997. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.

VIDE impugned order dated 23rd May, 2003, District Forum dismissed the complaint merely on the ground that when he asked the Counsel for the appellant he is ready to pay Rs. 29,821 with interest and take delivery, he replied in negative. It is a very sad case as it has suffered inordinate and highly protracted litigation for 10 long years. The appellant gave the car for repairs and the respondent retained the car for such a long period only for non-payment of Rs. 29,821. Such a practice sounds like holding person at ransom. If there was a bill of Rs. 29,821, the respondent could have filed a suit for recovery of claim but in no way he has right to retain the vehicle which was a value of hundred times more the bill for which it was retained.

They could have asked for advance to ensure the payment. For recovery of dues, there is civil and legal remedy and not the illegal or unscrupulous methods of retaining the vehicle for ten long years and having reduced it consumable. By retaining the vehicle respondent has committed grossest kind of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and deprived the owner of the vehicle from using it for such long time. The only dispute was parking charge @ 200 per day and few more discrepancies. No document has been produced by the respondent to show that the appellant had agreed to pay Rs. 200 per day in writing for parking which in normal course should have been Rs. 100 per day.

FOR having put the appellant to such a mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering, physical discomfort and having deprived the appellant to use its vehicle for long years for which he was entitled compensation many times more the actual bill raised by the respondent, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to return the car within 15 days after receipt of the order failing which the respondent shall have to face the consequences under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are taking very conservative view otherwise we would have directed the respondent to pay lakh of rupees as compensation and damage. No body can take the law in its own hand.

IN the given facts of the case we are neither awarding compensation nor the cost of litigation and only directing the respondent to return the car as charges to be paid by the appellant should be deemed as compensation due to high handedness on the part of the respondent. The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.

A copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Appeal disposed of.