VIJAY AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LTD. vs UNA GRAHAK SURAKSHA SAMITI, UNA

BOTH these appeals can be disposed of together as both the appeals arise out of the same order. The appeals are directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Una, dated 23.10.92. Appeal No. 62 of 1992 has been filed by the appellant/opposite party (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite party) and the appeal No. 53 of 1992 has been filed by Una Grahak Suraksha Samiti, Una (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant).

THE brief facts of the case are that one Sh. P.D. Bansal son of Sh. Tara Chand resident of village Gagret, District Una, has filed the complaint on behalf of Una Grahak Suraksha Samiti, Una, the complainant, on the ground that the complainant approached the opposite party on 13.7.91 for the purchase of one Premier Padmani Deluxe Car and that the opposite party agreed to sell the said car for Rs. 1,47,153/- (inclusive of all taxes) on 13.7.91 and issued a proforma invoice on the same day. THE complainant accordingly deposited the amount of Rs. 1,47,153/- on the same day i.e. on 13.7.91 through a Bank Draft issued by the State Bank of India, Chintpurni and payable at State Bank of India, Chandigarh. Although the full price was paid, but the car, in question, was not delivered to the complainant. On the other hand, on 6.9.91, by a letter dated 6.9.91, the opposite party required the complainant to further deposit Rs. 32,837/- as the enhanced amount due to revised rate of the car which the complainant had to deposit for the delivery of the car. According to the complainant, the enhanced amount of Rs. 32,837/- was paid by him under compelling circumstances as he has already paid the huge amount of Rs. 1,47,153/- towards full price of the car on 13.7.91. THE demand for extra amount of Rs. 32,837/- by the opposite party amounts to an unfair trade practice. According to the complainant, his mother was confined to bed and his father was an old man of 75 years and, therefore, he was in dire need of the car and as such the extra amount of Rs. 32,837/- alongwith interest had to be paid under duress. In these circumstances, the complainant has not only claimed refund of Rs. 32,837/- alongwith interest @ 14% per annum but also an amount of Rs. 60,000/- for mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by him due to non-delivery of the car on 13.7.91. There is no dispute that the opposite party did receive Rs. 1,47,153/- (inclusive of all taxes) as the price of the car on 13.7.91. It is not further in dispute that the car was not delivered on that date and the car was delivered after the price of the car was increased on 6.9.91 for an amount of Rs. 32,837/- and that after the payment of the enhanced price of Rs. 32.837/- the delivery of the car was given to the complainant. According to the terms of the proforma invoice dated 13.7.91, the complainant was to pay the price prevalent at the time of delivery of the car which was delivered to him on 13.9.91.

The learned District Forum has partly allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 32,837/- (paid by the complainant on 13.9.91) with interest @ 14% per annum from 13.9.91 till the date of deposit and also costs of Rs. 500/-.

THE complainant is aggrieved against the non-award of compensation on account of mental tension, torture, agony and harassment that he has allegedly suffered whereas the opposite party is aggrieved against the order for payment of Rs. 32,837/- with interest @ 14% per annum and also costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant and hence both the appeals have been filed. The learned District Forum, after perusal of the evidence, have come to this conclusion that the conduct of the opposite party in not delivering the car the same time and issuing the demand letter for further amount of Rs. 32,837/- on 6.9.91 (Ex. C3) clearly shows that the opposite party waited for the time of the increase in the price of the car and thus did not deliver the car before the enhancement of the price intentionally which is improper and unfair for the opposite party.

WE are in entire agreement with the reasoning given by the District Forum in this respect. Suffice it to say that in the proforma invoice Ex. Cl, no date and time for the delivery of the car was fixed. When the full payment of the price of the car was made on 13.7.91, the opposite party is duty-bound to deliver the car immediately or within a reasonable period and should not have permitted the price to be raised by the Company. This conduct on the part of the opposite party is clearly a case of unfair trade practice. It may also be noticed in this context that there was patent delay of two months in the delivery of the car. Even for the delayed delivery of the car, no adequate explanation appears on the record. The conclusions of the District Forum are perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. WE are fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Pratap Dass v. Modem Automobiles and Another, (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 581, where in a similar case, the Supreme Court has held: "Once it is found as above, it would be somewhat clear that there was a patent delay of nearly two months in the delivery of the car even after the receipt of the full payment for which no adequate explanation appears on the record. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary the rule in Section 32 of the Sale of Goods Act. has to be complied with. The District Forum''s finding that the delay in delivery had been probably done intentionally to extract an enhanced price from the complainant is, therefore, not devoid of plausibility. Consequently, there is patent deficiency in the service the appellants had undertaken to render and the District Forum in the consumer jurisdiction rightly awarded the relief and compensation therefor".

Therefore, there is no force in the appeal filed by the opposite party and the same is accordingly dismissed. There is also no substance in Appeal No. 53 of 1992 filed by the complainant as no satisfactory evidence could demonstrate that the complainant has suffered harassment and mental torture due to non-delivery of the car immediately on 13.7.91 for which he has claimed compensation of Rs. 60,000/-, therefore, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. In both the above appeals, there is no orders as to costs. Appeals dismissed.