MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED Vs. KANHAIYALAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the C.P. Act ) is filed by one of the two opposite parties, the Maruti Udyog Ltd., against the order dated 5.8.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior in Case No. 297/2000 directing the appellant to refund to the respondent No. 1 -complainant Rs. 24,033/ - with interest and costs.

(2.) APPELLANT is a Public Limited Company dealing in manufacture and sale of Maruti range of motor vehicles. Respondent No. 2 M/s. Radhika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. is the dealer of appellant -company carrying on its business at Gwalior. Respondent No. 1 -complainant on 9.2.2000 booked a Maruti Omni -E with respondent No. 2 and paid Rs. 1,78,568.75 through a demand draft drawn in favour of appellant -company. In the booking order (Annexure D/1) the approximate delivery period indicated was 5 to 6 weeks. It is no more in dispute that the aforesaid model booked by the complainant could not be delivered to him and instead he was delivered Maruti Omni Euro -II model car on 22.4.2000. This car carried a higher price i.e., Rs. 2,07,618.63 besides, sales tax Rs. 11,620.62. The complainant paid the difference price and took delivery of the vehicle. Complaint of respondent No. 1 before the Forum below was that there was deliberate delay on the part of opposite parties i.e., the appellant and respondent No. 2 in delivering the vehicle to him which resulted in rise in cost and put the complainant to additional financial burden and also amounted unfair trade practice on their part. He claimed refund of the excess amount Rs. 24,033/ - paid by him to the opposite parties and a further compensation of Rs. 63,100/ - on various other counts.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the opposite parties who filed separate written statements. Their common defence was that after the said booking of Maruti Omni -E model, the production of that model was stopped under orders of the Supreme Court and the directions issued by the Government of India and instead production of better model Omni Euro -II which contained anti -pollution device was commenced. It was this model of car which was made available to the complainant on payment of difference amount. The complainant accepted the delivery and paid the requisite price without raising any objection. He has been charged for the model of car sold to him. The time of delivery indicated in the booking order was only approximate and did not constitute essence of contract. Appellant further denied any privity of contract with the complainant and it was contended that the appellant -company sells its vehicle to its dealers on principal to principal basis having no direct contract with the consumer.