FIAT INDIA PVT LTD Vs. ZAHID HUSSAIN GILLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. D.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Mr. Nirmal Kotwal, learned counsel for the respondent, at length.

(2.) This is an appeal from an order dated 17-1-2002 of the J and K State Consumer Protection Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission"). By the aforesaid order, the State Commission has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,87,497.50 with 18% interest from the date of depositing the amount with the respondent (appellant), Rs. 40,000.00 as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000.00 on account of cost of litigation, payable by the appellant held responsible and liable for deficiency of service.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief may be noticed. UNO car was booked by the complainant with the appellant-manufacturer. An application form duly filled in along with draft of Rs. 21,000.00 came to be forwarded by the complainant to the manufacturer M/s. Premier Automobiles Limited, Mumbai. Delivery choice of Chandigarh Centre as per terms, conditions and instructions annexed to the application for booking UNO car was also given by the complainant. The appellant M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd., however, intimated the complainant about the maturity of the booking of UNO car on 31-1-1998 and asked to get in touch with their dealer, M/s. Amardeep Automobiles Ltd., along with the receipt-cum-priority for completing the necessary formalities relating to the delivery of the car. The complainant was also asked to make the payment to the dealer which included in the completion of the formalities towards the delivery of the car. Acting on this communication, the complainant sent an amount of Rs. 2,87,497.50 in favour of M/s. Amardeep Automobiles, Chandigarh (Dealer). It is stated that the car was never delivered to the complainant despite the payment of the entire amount for the purchase of the car.