DELHI AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. RAMESH HOODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 1.11.1999 passed by the District Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh in Complaint Case No.537 of 1998. The appellants in this case are M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, New Delhi and the same complainant having office at 181/3-B, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

(2.) The respondent No.1 Shri Ramesh Hooda had filed the aforesaid complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh claiming refund of the amount of Rs.25,000/-, the booking money for the car under brand name Peugeot-309 with interest and for damages for harassment. The total amount claimed by the complainant was to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. The booking of the said car was done on the application of the complainant on 28.10.1995. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the booking amount. The complainant was allotted Priority No. D-304/ 026. M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, U. T. , Chandigarh arrayed as opposite party No.3 in the complainant case and the appellant No.2 in this appeal had communicated the priority number to the complainant on 3rd of July, 1996 and intimated to the complainant that he may deposit further sum of Rs.4,16,823.97. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs 4,16,023.97 through Bank Draft No.308822 dated 4.7.1996 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch, Chandigarh. The receipt was also obtained regrding the deposit of this amount from the Branch Manager of appellant No.2 M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, Chandigarh. It was the case of the complainant that he was ensured by the opposite party that he will get the car within six weeks from the date of deposit of the whole amount. Despite the fact that the whole amount was deposited on 4.7.1996, the car was not delivered to him within the stipulated time of six weeks. The complainant contacted the respondent No.3/appellant No.2 several times and he was told that due to the strike in the factory, the car could not be supplied to him within the stipulated period. The strike in the factory was over in the month of December, 1996. The complainant once again assured that the delivery of the car would be effected very shortly in the month of December, 1996. The complainant, however, did not get the delivery of the car so promised. Being frustrated by not getting the delivery of the car which he had booked, he sent a letter to the opposite parties of the complaint and appellant in the instant appeal on 4.3.1997, cancelling the booking of the car and asking for the refund of the total amount deposited by him. The opposite party No.1 i. e. M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. , Kalyan Shil Road, Manpada, Dombivli, Distt. Thane (Maharashtra) wrote to the complainant vide letter No. S/4100 dated 28.4.1997 that the amount of the car deposited by him with the dealer had not been sent to the office of the manufacturer of the car i. e. opposite party No.2. Once again the complainant contacted the dealer at Chandigarh to enquire about the reasons for not sending the amount of the car deposited by him to the office of the opposite party No.1 but he could not get satisfactory reply to his query. The case of the complainant was that the first instalment of the price of the car deposited by him was refunded on 31.5.1997 vide Banker Cheque No. MC-1092/ 97 which was for a sum of Rs,.2,16,823/-. The second instalment of Rs.50,000/- was made to the complainant on 16.6.1997 whereas the third instalment of Rs.50,000/- was made to the complainant on 19.6.1997. The last instalment of Rs.1 lac was paid to the complainant on 16.7.1997, on which date the complainant gave a receipt to the opposite party No.3/appellant No.2 that he had received the full payment of the amount deposited by him with opposite party No.3/ appellant No.2 aforesaid. The grievance of the complainant was that despite notice given to the respondents on 2.4.1998 regarding the refund of the booking amount of 25,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum and also interest at the same rate on the amount deposited of a sum of Rs.4,16,823.97, no reply was given by the opposite parties. A legal notice was also served on the respondents but no action was taken by the respondents. Hence, the complaint was filed as mentioned earlier.

(3.) The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh issued notices of the complaint case to the respondents. Replies were filed before the District Forum. The complainant as well as the respondent led evidence and after hearing both the sides, the District Forum recorded a categorical finding that the opposite parties were deficient in rendering service to the complainant and directed the opposite party No.3 M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited, Chandigarh to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant for the period, it remained with them. An amount of Rs.3,000/- was also ordered to be paid on account of inconvenience and expenditure incurred by the complainant. The District Forum also directed that the opposite party No.1 i. e. M/s. Pal Peugeot Limited shall make payment of booking amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant with interest till its payment and further directed the opposite party No.3 aforesaid to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.4,16,82/.- by calculating the same, keeping in view the refund having been received by the complainant in instalments on different dated. The costs of the complaint case were quantified at Rs.3,000/- which were ordered to be paid by opposite party Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally.