PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED Vs. T N BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of both the above titled Revision Petitions as they arise out of the same order passed in Appeal No.40 of 1991 by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission, Bangalore. The Reviision Petitioner in Revision Petition No.l4 is the manufacturer of Premier 118 NE Cart (hereinafter referred to as the Manufactutrer) while Revision Petitioner in Revision Petition No.23 is the authorised dealer (hereinafter referred to as the Dealer) for sale and supply of the said car. Shri T.N. Babu who is Respondent No.1 in both Revision Petitions (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) registered with the Manufacturer for the purchase of a Premier 118 NE Car in 1985 by paying an advance of Rs.11,000.00 The Complainant received a letter dated 13th January, 1990 from the Dealer calling upon him to pay Rs.l,64,642.00 . That amount was arrived, at by quoting the ex- showroom price of the car at Rs.l,75,642.00 less Rs.ll,000.00 paid as advance. The Compainant paid the balance amount of Rs. l,64,642.00 by means of a draft dated 3rd February, 1990 to the Dealer. Thereafter the Complainant did not receive any intrnation from the Dealer about the delivery of the car in spite of his approaching the Dealer almost every alternate days. The Complainant received another letter dated 3rd April, 1990 from the Dealer calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs 17,0(}2\- since the price of the Premier 118 NE Car bad been revised w.e.f. 27th march 1990. On receiving that letter the Complainant approached the Dealer and requested them to deliver the car without insisting on the payment of Rs.l7002\- on the ground that he bad already paid the full value. The Dealer did not accede to this request of the Complainant and thus the latter was forced to pay the said amount of Rs.17,002/on 18th April, 1990. Ultimately the car was delivered to the Complainant on 8th May, 1990. According to the Complainant, the Dealer was not at all justified in collectig the said amount of Rs.l7,002.00 from him as he had already paid the full value of that car on 3rd February, 1990 when the car which was allotted to him on priority basis was ready for delivery in the Dealer's showroom. The Dealer had withheld the delivery of the car on receiving the amount of Rs. l,64,642.00 from him expecting that the price of the car would be revised in the budget for the year 1990- 91. Thus the Complainant filed a complaint betore the District Forum, Bangalore for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 17,002.00 with interest amounting to Rs. 8,314/ on the amount of full value of the car paid by him on 3rd February, 1990 @ 18% per annum till the date of delivery of the car.

(2.) Before the District Forum only the Dealer had been arrayed as the Opposite Party. The Dealer took up some preliminary objections with which we are not concerned at this stage. On merits the Dealer pleaded that under letter dated 13th January, 1990 while giving the particulars of the price of the car it had also been slated that the price collected was the ruling price as on that dale and that the same was subject to change and that the price ruling on the dale of delivery would apply. At the time of accepting the demand draft for Rs.l,64,652.00 the Complainant was clearly informed that for the delivery of the car it would lake at least 10 to 12 weeks from that dale. By virtue of the increase in excise duty on cars in the National Budget prented on 19th March, 1990 and also as the revision of the price of the car came into effect from 27th March, 1990 by the Maufacturer, there was an increase in the price of the car by Rs.l7,002.00 . On being satisfied with the reasons for the difference ill price, the Complainant had paid the said amount without any demur and look 406 delivery of the car on 8th May, 1990 and as such the Complainant is not entitled to the refund of the said amount of Rs.l7,002.00 or to any interest as claimed by him.

(3.) The District Forum held that since the Complainant-had paid the entire price of the car as prevailing on 3rd February, 1990 as demanded by the Dealer, the Complainant was not liable to pay any further amount at the time of delivery of the car for the simple reason that the delay in delivery of the car was not occasioned by any act of the Complainant. The dealer was, therefore, held liable to refund the amount of Rs.l7,002.00 which according to the District Forum bad been collected from the Complainant without any justification. The District Forum gave the above finding I after observing that it was not the case of the Dealer that the Complainant at the ime of booking the car with the Maufacturer bad agreed to pay the price of the car on demand either by the Manufacturer or by the Dealer at any time prior to the date of delivery and, therefore, the Dealer of the car. could not have unilaterally incorporated the condition in the letter dated 13th January, 1990 that the ruling price was ubject to change without notice and the price ruling at the time of actual delivery would only apply. The District Forum also came to the conclusion that the car was available with the Dealer for allotment to the complainant on 3rd February, 1990 on which date the balance amount was received by them. The District Forum also allowed interest to the complainant on the amount of Rs. l,64,642.00 @ 12% per annum from 3rd February, 1990 to 8th May, 1990 which came to Rs. 5,550.00 . The District Forum, accordingly asked the dealer to repay the Complainant a sum of Rs. 17,002/ with interest thereon @ 12% from 3rd February, 1990 till the date of payment. The dealer was further asked to pay to the Complainant Rs.5,550.00 being the amount of interest as noticed above. Here we may mention that we have not been able to understand how the District Forum allowed the interest on the sum of Rs.l7,002/ from 3rd February,1990 when that amount was actually paid on 18th April, 1990.