VINODDHANDRA C.PARIKH vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD.

THE Opposite Party viz. M/s. Sipani Automobiles Limited (herein after referred to as the company) a re the manufacturers of diesel and petrol car named as Montanna.

THAT reading the advertisement in the local newspaper, the complainant contacted the dealers M/s Vimpson Agencies al Ahmedabad to get the information about Montanna Diesel Car to be manufactured by the Company at Bangalore. He was given the literature and application form for boo king. The complainant was interested in the diesel car which was advertised to give an average of 29 Kms, and the expected cost per kilometer which was advertised was 0.14 paise whereas the cost of the car was Rs. 90,000/- which was to be delivered at Ahmedabad through the dealer. Being tempted by such specifications and offer the complainant booked the car with the dealer and deposited Rs. 10,000/- by cheque dt. 1.3.89 in the UCO Bank, Ahmedabad in the account of M/s Sal Car on 13.3.89. Due acknowledgement was received from UCO Bank which has been produced by the Complainant.

Thereafter the complainant received the allotment intimation of Montanna car, the allotment number being 001 W-00107. The allotment intimation is also produced with the complaint. Thereafter he received two letters wherein it was promised that the delivery of the car will be started in the first week of October, 1989. That inspite of this clear promise, again the complainant received one letter dated March 10, 1990 that some cars have been delivered in Bombay and the Company will deliver the car between April and June 90 to the complainant. However, such a car was not delivered for long and, therefore, the complainant wrote a letter and enquired as to when the car will be delivered to him. He received a letter dated 3.2.90 informing him that the car will be delivered to him in the fourth quarter of 1990.

INSTEAD of getting the car in the last quarter of 1990, the complainant received a circular regarding new model Montanna Diesel Car showing the price at Rs. 1,95,000/-. However, the complainant informed the Company vide letterdated5.12.90deliverthe Montanna Diesel Car as promised. In reply to the said letter the company intimated the complainant by letter dated 29.12.90 that be will be receiving a letter shortly for the delivery of the car. By another letter dated 22.1.90 the company informed the complainant that the ex-factory price will be Rs. 1,31,131.62. Inspite of demanding more money the company did not care to deliver the car. Again, the complainant received a letter dated 18.3.91 (Exh. 14) in which the company stated that the cost of the diesel car is Rs. 1,76,000/- and offered to transfer the booking to another car-Sipani D-l for which the company demanded Rs. 9,000/- as transfer fees. The complainant being tired with the company for this delaying tactics and since two years have passed, wrote a letter by Registered Post A.D. dated 25.3.91 to cancel the booking and return the amount. No reply was received for this letter nor the deposit was returned. He, therefore, again wrote a letter dated 29.5.91 to return the deposit with interest. Ultimately on6.8.91 he received a letter from the company asking him to send the original documents for cancellation of booking. The complainant sent the original documents vide his letter dated 21.8.91 by registered post. Instead of sending the deposit amount, the company sent a reply dated 30.8.91 wherein the cancellation was accepted and promised to send the full refund within 90 days. However no refund was received. Thereafter (he complainant sent legal notice on 30.1.92 by registered post for the payment with interest and after waiting for sometime, since no reply was received, reminder was sent through advocate and having not received the deposit amount, the complainant has filed this complaint and has claimed damages of Rs. 75,000/- for failure to deliver the vehicle and Rs. 10,000/- the deposit paid and a further compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for menial suffering and agony and cost of Rs. 2,000/- for filing the complaint. The total amount so claimed comes to Rs. 1,12,000/-. Mr. Parikh, the complainant submits before us that this company is following unfair trade practice by giving false advertisements to collect money from the gullible customers who rely upon such advertisements by paying high deposit. According to Mr. Parikh not a single customer has received the car from this company through many persons have booked this car in Gujarat. According to Mr. Parikh the Company is systematically following this tactics since 4/5 years and have collected huge amounts for booking the Sipani car. It never had any intention to supply the vehicle at that price. After having taken the deposit, the result is that the person who intends to purchase the car books the car with the Company and restrains from booking with other Companies. The prices are rising day by day with the result if they intend to purchase another car from the market, they shall have to pay more than 75% being the difference in price the price at the time of booking and the prevalent price.

MR. Parikh therefore argued that such dishonest manufacturers who are systematically and regularly giving advertisement by giving false promises to collect money should be severely dealt with punishment. According to MR. Parikh the prices of the cars have gone too high and the opposite party has in terms promised to deliver the said car in October 1989. If that date is taken as probable date of delivery, the quotations sent by the opposite party itself shows that the market price has been increased from Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 1,41,000/-. Even then, this price, according to the complainant is also illusory because the Company is not prepared to deliver this car at that price also. He, therefore, submits that he is entitled to the difference in price of Rs. 75,000/- as demanded by the company since the car has not been delivered to him. MR. Parikh further submits that in any view of the matter, he is a victim of unfair trade practice of the manufacturer and is entitled to the real damages done to him on account of unfair trade practice which he estimates at Rs. 75,000/- being the difference of price which he shall require to pay when he purchases a new car from the market. The opposite party has filed a written statement but did not care to appear before us. We have adjourned the case from time to time to enable the opposite party to appear before us but the opposite party has not appeared till today. We have, therefore, only to rely upon the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant since no evidence has been produced by the opposite party except the written statement which is without any supporting evidence. The contention taken in the written statement that the complaint is barred by limitation has no substance because the complaint has been filed on 11.5.92 whereas the allotment intimation was made on 15.5.89 and thereafter there are several letters which promise the deliver)'' and, therefore, the complaint is clearly within time, particularly when the breach of contract has been made by the opposite party by not delivering the car as per last promise dated 29.12.1990 (Exh.1 2) wherein the opposite party has stated that they have delivered about 1000 cars all over India and very few cars have been delivered in Ahmedabad and they are appointing a new dealer at Ahmedabad very shortly and further delivery of the cars will be started once the dealer is appointed. That the priority number has already matured and the complainant will be receiving a letter very shortly. The evidence further shows that the company has not even cared to return the deposit though promised several times and in the written statement the company is praying for installment. This clearly shows that this company has neither any intention to deliver the car nor any intention to return the deposit and when they are praying for installment, it shows of either their weak financial position or unfair trade practice.

THERE were similar cases before us also. In those cases also the company had never cared to deliver the car and had not returned the deposit. In one case where cheque was sent the same was not honoured.

WE, therefore, feel that the company which manufactures the cars advertise in the newspapers with no intention to deliver the same at the price fixed by them and thereby collects deposits, do not give proper reply to the letters, do not appear before the Commission so that other persons can cross-examine and extract the facts and figures, should be seriously dealt with. None of the contentions raised by the company has any substance. WE are, therefore, of the opinion that complainant has proved beyond doubt that the company is following unfair trade practice with the intention to collect money and was not even ready to return the deposit. WE are also satisfied that the complainant has suffered damages on account of non-delivery of the car and even if he purchases new car from the market he will be liable to pay heavy price. In case of Parmar Vrajlal Raghubhai v. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. & Anr., reported in 1991 (2) CPR page 598 which is a case earlier than this wherein the complainant was required to pay the full price, the car was not delivered and we were constrained to pass an order directing this Company to deliver the Montana Diesel car without demanding further payment of if the car was not delivered within the time specified the company was required to pay Rs. 1,16,650/- with running interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs. 5,000/- by way of damages and for harassment and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. In the instant case the complainant has, in para 25 in terms stated as under : "From the facts mentioned as above it is evident that the opposite party No. 1 made representations which it had no intention to carry out which amounts to unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(1)(v)r.w. Sec. 36A(i)(ii)(viii) of MRTP Act, 1969. It has resulted in monetory loss and caused unavoidable sufferings to an elderly person who completely relied on the promises and representations made by the opposite parties."

For this averment of the complainant there is no reply except the bare denial. No facts or figures have been given by the opposite party regarding delivery of this Montana car according to any contract to any other person. So far the unfair trade practice is concerned, we estimate the damage at Rs. 20,000/- to set an example against such illegal and unfair trade practice followed by the company though according to our opinion the complainant has suffered much more than Rs. 20,000/-.

So far the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 are concerned, they are not liable for the said amount since no case has been proved against them. We, therefore, pass the following order. ORDER The opposite party No. 1 M/s. Sipani Automobiles Limited shall return the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant with running interest @ 18% p.a. from 13.3.89 till the payment is made. The opposite party will pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation including the compensation for pain and suffering to the complainant and will pay cost which we quantify at Rs. 1,000/-. The opposite party shall pay the above amounts within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Complainant allowed with costs.