MOHINDER PRATAP DASS Vs. MODERN AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes redressal Forum (District Forum). It was alleged in the complaint that despite the deposits of the full price of the car, the respondents intentionally did not deliver the vehicle within one month's time. According to the complainant having not been assured by the respondents about the release of the car within the period of one month, he would not have deposited the balance price of the car. Aggrieved by the non-delivery he served a notice on the respondents and it was only thereafter that the car was released on 26/12/1990. He was, however, compelled to pay the extra amount of rs 5858 on account of price hike in December 1990. Consequently, he claimed the relief of Rs. 5,858. 00 and also interest on the deposited amount as the price of the car. The District Forum on appreciation of evidence and taking into consideration other relevant material before it came to the conclusion that delivery of the vehicle was withheld intentionally to take advantage of the impending price hike. The respondents challenged the order of the District Forum by way of appeal before the Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh (State Commission) which upheld the findings of the District Forum in the following words:

(2.) The respondents, thereafter, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the national Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (National commission) which reversed the judgments of the two courts below. The national Commission held that the transaction in question was purely one of sale of goods under a contract for sale of a motor vehicle and there it was not alleged that there was any 'defect' whatsoever in the vehicle that was supplied. The National Commission further held that there was no arrangement for performance of any service for consideration and hence the question of "deficiency in service" did not arise. We do not agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the National Commission. The delivery of the car within the specified period is a part of the service to be performed by the respondent. There was patent "deficiency in service" when the respondents withheld the delivery intentionally to take advantage of the impending price hike. The National Commission relied on its earlier order in first Appeal No. 5 of 1992 decided on 7/12/1992. The facts of that case are entirely different. The National Commission in that case had come to the conclusion that there was no substance or evidence to show that the dealer was in any manner guilty of any unfair trade practice. In the present case the district Forum and the State Commission concurrently came to the conclusion that the respondents intentionally delayed the delivery of the car so that enhanced price could be charged from the appellant. The view we have taken is fully covered by the judgment of this court in 0m Prakash v. Assistant Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.

(3.) We allow the appeal, set aside the order of the National Commission and restore that of the District Forum as upheld by the State Commission.