M/S TAPAN MOTORS, SOLAN Vs. VIKRAM CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2011, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them and respondents No.2 and 3 by respondent No.1 Vikram Chauhan, has been allowed and they (the appellants) have been ordered to refund an amount of Rs.5,500/ -, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/ - and litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/ -.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 Vikram Chauhan wanted to purchase a Santro Car, for which he approached the appellants.  He did not have the ready cash and so he asked the appellants as to from which bank, loan could be raised. Respondent No.1 was told that loan could be taken from the State Bank of Patiala, though respondent No.1 himself planned to make application for loan to the State Bank of India. On being advised by the appellants, to seek loan from the State Bank of Patiala, respondent No.1 approached Gaura Branch of the said bank for advancing loan.

(3.) APPELLANTS contested the complaint and denied that they had advised respondent No.1 not to seek loan from State Bank of India and instead to seek it from State Bank of Patiala. It was stated that though, a letter dated 29 ''September, 2008, had been received from Gaura Branch of State Bank of Patiala, yet they had obtained an undertaking, in writing (available at page -40 of learned District Forum 's record), to the effect that in case there was delay of more than 7 days in remittance of money by the bank, penalty at the rate of Rs.250/ - per day will be charged and that amount of Rs.5,500/ - had been charged from respondent No.1, because the bank made the payment on 22nd October, 2008.  It was stated that as soon as the penalty amount of Rs.5,500/ - was paid, documents required for registration of the vehicle, were released in favour of respondent No.1.