VELJI KANJI PATEL vs LAXMI MOTORS

- THE complainant applied for Premier 137-D car and paid the amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite party No. 1Laxmi Motors, Gandhidham on December 8, 1991 by demand draft. THE opposite party No. 1 demanded other amounts and, therefore, the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 1,59,342/- on 15.9.92, Rs. 10,700/-on 16.9.92 and Rs. 950/- on 15.9.92. According to the complainant he paid an amount of Rs. 1,85,992/- to the opposite party No. 1. THE opposite party No. 1 also collected the amount of Rs. 3,200/- in name of M/s. Agrawal Road lines and the complainant paid that amount by demand draft on 15.9.92. THE grievance of the complainant is that inspite of the fact that full price of the car was paid, the delivery was not given to the complainant. THE complainant therefore prayed for the direction to deliver the car with 18% interest on the amount paid and also to refund the amount of Rs. 3,200/- collected by the opposite party No. 1 for transportation and compensation @ Rs. 5,000/- per month for the loss suffered by the complainant.

THE opposite party No. 1 by reply purported to be the application under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 contended that the application is not tenable and the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the transaction has taken place at Gandhidham and the offer was accepted at Gandhidham. He also contended that the valuation of the complaint is only Rs. 55,000/- and, therefore, also this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. No other contention is raised by the opposite party No. 1 till the date of the final hearing. The opposite party No. 2 was sent notice by registered post but it was returned with the endorsement "INTIMATION" on the envelope. No endorsement is made by the postman that the notice was refused by the opposite party No. 2. After that the complainant has not cared to get the notice served to the opposite party No. 2.

At the time of hearing Shri B.Y. Mankad, the learned advocate for the complainant made the statement that the car has been delivered to the complainant on 2.3.93 and, therefore, that grievance of the complainant does not survive. Mr. Mankad has, however, asserted for three relief viz. (1) Rs. 3,200/- collected for transport charges, (2) interest @ 18% on the amount paid for late delivery of the car and (3) compensation @ Rs. 5,000/- per month for late delivery.

SHRI A.S. Thakore, the learned advocate for the opposite party has asserted that the opposite party No. 1 is only commission agent and the principal is opposite party No. 2 and, therefore, opposite party No. 1 cannot be saddled with any such liability. He has also denied the liability for any amount as claimed by the complainant. The amount of Rs. 3,200/-is collected for transportation and the demand draft was also made in the name of Agrawal Roadlines for that purpose. The vehicle is already delivered and, therefore, it is quite natural that the expenses for transport were required to be incurred. Therefore, transport charges were rightly recovered and the complainant is not entitled to said relief. The submission of Shri Thakore that the opposite party No. 1 is merely agent of opposite party No. 2 and, therefore, cannot be saddled with any liability cannot be accepted as it is clear from the contention in the complaint that the transaction was entered into with the opposite party No. 1 and the amount was paid to opposite party No. 1. That factual aspect is not controverted by opposite party No. 1 in the reply. As such no reply to the complaint raising such complaints is filed by the opposite party No. 1. Apart from that it is clear from the receipt dated 16.9.92 that Laxmi Motors is the authorised dealer of Premier Automobiles Limited and the head office is situated at Opp. Hotel Gokul, National Highway, Transport Nagar, Gandhidham. It is true that the receipt is signed for Laxmi Motors (Bombay) by authorised person but it is clear that the head office is at Gandhidham and opposite party No. 1 is having the head office at Gandhidham. The dealer is an independent person and not the agent of the manufacturer. In such circumstance'', the opposite party No. 1 is responsible for the transaction and liability. The opposite party No. I by letter dated 30.7.92 informed the complainant that the priority for the delivery with the opposite party No. 1 was likely to mature and instructed to contact Laxmi Motors, Gandhidham for completing the further formalities. In that letter also the address of the opposite party No. 1 is stated. That letter also establishes that the transaction was with the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 is, therefore, liable for the amount which we award.

IT is stated in the receipt dated 16.9.92 that the delivery may be effected between 45 to 55 days from the date of delivery. After that by letter dated 30.7.92 the complainant was informed about the maturity. The delivery, therefore, normally should have been given after two months after the receipt was issued. Instead of giving delivery on or about 16.11.92, the delivery is given on 2.3.92 i.e. after about 3 months and 15 days. IT is, therefore, clear that the delivery was given after about three months and 15 days after the normal period meant for the delivery of the vehicle. The full amount was paid in advance and, therefore, it is obvious that the complainant was put to loss of interest and business. IT is clear that the complainant was required to make arrangements with the bank for payment and that is why the Bank of Baroda had addressed the letter to M/s. Laxmi Motors and sent draft to the opposite party. The complainant therefore should be awarded the damages by way of loss of interest @ 12% from 16.11.92 to 2.3.93 on the amount of Rs. 1,85,992/-. The amount of Rs. 5,620/- therefore should be awarded to the complainant for the damages for the loss of interest. The complainant has also claimed the loss of business @ Rs. 5,000/- per month but the delivery period was not so long and was reasonable and, therefore, we do not award any amount for the loss of business. Apart from that we have compensated the complainant for loss of interest. ORDER The opposite party No. 1 shall pay Rs. 5,620/- to the complainant with 12% interest on Rs. 5,620/-from date of order till realisation and shall pay the amount of Rs. 300/- for the cost of this complaint. The claims against the opposite party No. 2 are dismissed. Complaint allowed with costs.