VIJAYA SUBBANNA vs Maruti Udyog Ltd.

IN this complaint, the complainant has sought refund of excise duty and enhanced price collected for the purchase of a Maruthi 800 TRI model car from the Opposite Parties and has also sought interest on the price amount deposited by her from the date of deposit upto the date of delivery of the vehicle and also compensation on various counts.

THE complainant, a physically handicapped lady, was allotted a Maruthi 800 TRI model car by the Opposite Party on 2.7.90. THE complainant made the payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as advance to the Opposite Party on 2.7.90, as per Exs. C-1 and C-2. THEreafter, the complainant made payment of a sum of Rs. 1,03,132/- on 22.9.90, as per Exs. C-3 and C-4 towards the full value of the said vehicle. The complainant had earlier purchased a Maruthi Deluxe car from the Opposite Parties on 26.10.89, as she found it difficult to drive the same, so placed an order for the Maruthi 800 TRI modal car, as referred above.

The complainant received a letter dated 3.12.90, as per Ex. C-5 from Opposite Party No. 1-the manufacturer of the vehicle. Opposite Party No. 2-is the dealer for Opposite Party No. 1, at Bangalore. The Opposite Parties informed the complainant thereby that the vehicle was ready to be despatched and she would be able to receive it in a couple of days.

OPPOSITE Party No. 1 also addressed a letter to its dealer, as per Ex. C-6 on 7.12.90, stating that the vehicle of the complainant was already invoiced. The complainant having regard to the fact that she would be able to receive, the vehicle ordered and paid for, from the Opposite Party soon, sold her Maruthi Deluxe Car on 2.1.91, under Ex. C-15-a delivery note.

THE complainant did not receive the vehicle as promised by the Opposite Parties in the letters Exs. C-5 and C-6, even by the end of Dec., 1990, so the complainant wrote a letter on 29.12.90, as per Ex. C-7 to Opposite Party No. 1 asking to deliver the car immediately. Opposite Party No. 1, informed the complainant, as per Ex. C-8, on 4.1.91 stating that the vehicle could not be allotted to her and she had been placed on waiting list at No. 1. The complainant further averred that on receipt of this letter, Ex. C-8, wrote back the letter, as per Ex. C-9 on 11.2.91, expressing her dismay over the non-delivery of the car which was ready for delivery and even was invoiced, as per Exs. C-5 and C-6. Opposite Party No. 1 informed her that by their letter Ex. C-10, on 15.2.91 expressing their regret for the delay in delivery of the vehicle and stated that the vehicle would be delivered whenever produced. The complainant further averred that the vehicle was delivered by the Opposite Parties to the complainant only on 26.3.91 collecting the excess price and also excise duty from her. The complainant nextly averred that if the vehicle were to be delivered to her as stated by the Opposite Party, as per Exs. C-5 and C-6 in the first week of Dec., 1990, she was not liable to pay enhanced price and also the excise duty.

THE complainant further averred that she had suffered loss for having engaged a taxi for her movement from Jan., to March, 1991 as she had sold her earlier vehicle Maruthi Deluxe car with a hope of getting the car allotted to her by the Opposite Parties.

THE complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation as referred above. The Opposite Parties filed their version; admitted the fact that a Maruthi 800 TRI model car was allotted to the complainant, as averred by the complainant. The Opposite Parties also admitted the fact that the complainant made full payment of the value of the car to them by 22.9.90.

The Opposite Parties have also admitted the fact that the price of the said car was enhanced from 20.12.90. The Opposite Parties also admitted the fact that the complainant was informed, as per Ex. C-5, stating that the vehicle was allotted and it was already invoiced, as per Ex. C-6.

THE Opposite Parties further averred that the car became ready for delivery only in the month of March, 1991 and so the price prevailing at that time was taken from the complainant and the excise duty collected was also proper as per the Excise Act and Rules. THE Opposite Parties denied that there was any delay in the delivery of the car to the complainant as the said car was delivered to the complainant as soon as it was ready for delivery. During enquiry, the complainant examined herself as C.W. 1 and got Exs. C-l to C-19 marked in evidence. The Opposite Parties examined R.W. 1-the dealer at Bangalore and R.W.2, the Executive in the Sales Department of Opposite Party No. 1, and got Exs. R-l to R-18 marked in evidence.

WE have perused the material on record. WE had also heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the complainant a handicapped lady-applied for Maruthi 800 TRI model car and the Opposite Party allotted the same to her on 2.7.90. It is also not disputed by 22.9.90 the complainant made the payment of full value of the vehicle to the Opposite Party. It is also not disputed that the price of the said vehicle was increased on 20.12.90. Opposite Party No. 2-the dealer of Opposite Party No. 1-R.W. 1, has in this regard, in the examination-in-chief itself, stated thus: "On 20.12.90, the price of the vehicle was increased by Rs. 12,995/- by Respondent No. 1. The customs duty on such car was increased with effect from 20.12.90, due to that the price was increased. The car was delivered to the complainant on 27.3.91 after collecting that amount." It is clear from this statement of Opposite Party No. 2, that the price of vehicle was increased on 20.12.90. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant only on 27.3.91.

OPPOSITE Party No. 1-the manufacturer, wrote a letter to the complainant on 3.12.90, as per Ex. C-5. The said letter - Ex. C-5, reads as under: "Dear Sir, This has reference to the letter received from M/s. Solar Automobiles regarding delivery of car to you. Your vehicle is now ready to be despacted and you will receive the same in a couple of days. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, for Maruti Udyog Ltd., Sd/- (O.P. Arora) Sales & Despatch"

It shows that the vehicle allotted to the complainant was, by 3.12.90, ready for despatch.

EX. C-6, a letter dated 7.12.90, written by Opposite Party No. 1 to its dealer Opposite Party No. 2 reads as under: "To, Mr. K.V. Mayya, General Manager, Solar, Bangalore FAX: 0812-215604 F.N.1-O.P. Arora S & D MVL KINDLY REFER LETTER DATED 02.02:S; 121:90 DT 1ST DEC. STATUS AS BELOW: VEHICLES ALREADY INVOICED FOR (1) SRI JAGAN MOHAN REDDY (2) MRS.S.VIJAYA (3) C.A. BADRINATH (INV. No. 114969 dated 28.11.90) 2. A.B. PATIL IS ON WAITING No. 1 WE ARE SORRY FOR INCONVENIENCE (.) RGDS."

This shows that by 7.12.90, the vehicle allotted to the complainant was already invoiced, that is, the goods was sent, stating the price and charge therefor. R.W 2, has in this regard, stated thus: "We had written a letter as per Ex. C-5 to the complainant with reference to the quaere raised by Opposite Party No. 2. Before I wrote the letter Ex. C-5 to the complainant I did make an enquiry with the concerned section. My enquiry with the concerned section revealed that the vehicle of the complainant was invoiced. I made this enquiry with the Sales Department. After the car is ready for delivery the invoice is prepared. The name of the purchaser of the vehicle is mentioned in the invoice."

The documents, Exs. C-5 and C-6 and the evidence of R.W. 2, as referred above, make it clear that the vehicle allotted to the complainant was ready to be delivered to the complainant by 7.12.90.

When the complainant did not receive the vehicle even in the last week of December, 1990, wrote a letter to R.W.2 on 29.12.90, as per Ex. C-7 making an enquiry as to why the vehicle, in this regard as informed to her, did not reach her. Opposite Party No. 2 surprisingly wrote back to the complainant, as per Ex. C-8 on 4.1.91, stating that due to production constraint the vehicle could not be allotted to her. The complainant again wrote a letter to Opposite Party No. 2 on 11.12.91, expressing her anguish stating that she had sold her vehicle with a hope of getting the new vehicle, but she was informed that the vehicle was not yet produced. To this letter, Ex. C-9 of the complainant. Opposite Party No. 2 wrote back to her as per Ex. C-10 on 15.2.91, which reads as under: "Dear Customer, We thankfully acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 11th February, 1991 regarding delivery of your car against allotment No. 0202-H-02380, Model TRI. We regret very much the delay in delivery of your vehicle. Yours is the only vehicle of TRI model pending for delivery. No vehicle has been produced in this model since we wrote you last time. Hence, the first vehicle will be delivered to you whenever produced. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, for Maruti Udyog Limited, Sd/-(O.P. Arora) Sales & Despatch Deptt."

THIS shows that the vehicle would be delivered to the complainant as and when produced. The facts and the circumstances referred above, particularly, Exs. C-5 and C-6 and also the evidence of R.W. 2 himself, would make it clear that though the vehicle allotted to the complainant was ready for delivery on or before 7.12.90, but it was not delivered to her. The Opposite Parties have not at all explained the facts and circumstances under which the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant in the month of December, 1990. The delay in delivering the vehicle to the complainant till the end of March, 1991 has not at all been explained by the Opposite Parties. Having regard to these facts we are of the opinion that the services rendered by the Opposite Parties were deficient in nature. The complainant sold her vehicle-Maruti Deluxe car, on 2.1.91 with a hope to get the new vehicle allotted and invoiced to her by the Opposite Parties, the sale of which is evidenced by delivery note-Ex. C-15 dated 2.1.91.

FROM the first week of Jan., ''91 till the end of March ''91, the complainant was without any vehicle for her use, so these circumstances have necessarily caused her loss and injury. This was all due to the negligent act on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is material on record that the price of the said vehicle was increased on 20.12.90. The Opposite Parties in their version, at para 11, have stated, thus: "The price was increased with effect from 20.12.90." R.W. 1 has also in this regard, stated thus: "On 20.12.90, the price of the vehicle was increased by Rs. 12,995/- by Respondent No. 1." If the vehicle were to be delivered to the complainant, as per letters Exs. C-5 and C-6, on or before 7.12.90, the complainant were not to make the payment of this enhanced price of Rs. 12,995/-. So in our opinion, the complainant is entitled to get back this increased price paid by her to the Opposite Parties, of Rs. 12,995/-.

THE complainant has also claimed the refund of a sum of Rs. 40,072.92 collected towards excise duty.

IT is not disputed that the excise duty on the vehicles of the handicapped persons was not being collected till the end of December, 1990. R.W. 2, has in this regard, stated thus: "For about 22 vehicles invoiced in the month of Nov., 1990, the Excise people permitted us to clear the handicapped vehicles at ''Nil'' rate excise duty. In the month of Jan., 1991, excise authorities directed us to pay the excise duty in respect of those vehicles that were cleared in the month of Nov., 1990 without duty. Ex. R-14, is the copy of the communication received from the Central Excise Authorities. Ex. R-14(A) is its enclosure. Ex. R-15 is the copy of the demand notice of the Central Excise authorities. We have made the payment of the duties so demanded as per Ex. R-16. We have thereafter written to the dealers to recover the excise duty amount so paid by us from the customers. Ex. R-17 is the copy of the letter written by us to Opposite Party No. 2 to recover the excise duty paid by us in respect of 2 cars which were cleared to him."

These circumstances would go to show that the excise duty that was to be paid and recovered so by mistake not recovered and without taking the excise duty certain vehicles were cleared by the end of Nov., 1990 but subsequently they were directed to reimburse the same. Therefore, in our opinion, the complainant is not entitled for refund of excise duty collected by the Opposite Parties, as sought for by her.

The complainant has also sought refund of the transportation charges collected from her in a sum of Rs. 3,660/-.

THE complainant placed an order for the vehicle with the dealer of Opposite Party No. 1 at Bangalore with Opposite Party No. 2. THE vehicle was delivered to the complainant at Bangalore. THE value of which was collected from the complainant at Bangalore. Having regard to these facts, in our opinion, the Opposite Parties were not entitled to collect any further sums from the complainant either by way of transportation charges or otherwise. THErefore, the complainant is entitled to get back a sum of Rs. 3,660/- collected towards transportation charges. The complainant has sought, on various other counts, a compensation from the Opposite Parties. In our opinion, the ends of justice would serve, if interest is awarded on the amount deposited by the complainant from the date of deposit till the date of its delivery.

THE Opposite Parties have given interest on the said amount at 12% p.a. from 25.10.90 to the date of delivery, that is 27.3.91. In our opinion, the complainant is entitled to interest on the said amount of Rs. 1,13,132/- interest at 18% p.a., from 22.9.90 to 27.3.91; the amount of interest already paid by the Opposite Parties at Rs. 4,068.77 shall be deducted from the said amount of interest awarded. ORDER In the Result, therefore, this complaint is allowed. THE Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 12,995/- plus Rs. 3,660/- in all a sum of Rs. 16,655/- with interest at 18% p.a. On the said amount from 27.3.91 till the date of its payment. THE Opposite Parties shall also pay interest on the amount of Rs. 1,13,132/- at 18% p.a., from 22.9.90 till 27.3.91, deducting the amount of interest in a sum of Rs. 4,068.77 already paid to the complainant. THE Opposite Parties shall pay a sum of Rs 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards costs of this proceeding. THE Opposite Parties shall pay the sums so awarded as referred above to the complainant within a period of 2 (two) months from this day. Complaint allowed with costs.