V K BHASIN Vs. VIKAS MOTORS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the Complainant in Case No. 298 of 1989 on the file of the District Forum, Delhi against the order of the State Commission setting aside the majority decision of the District Forum directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,249.00 to the Complainant by way of refund of excessive price collected from him for the supply of a Maruti Van.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the grievance putforward by the Complainant before the District Forum was that the Opposite Party� M/s. Vikas Motors Pvt Ltd., with whom he had booked an order for the supply and delivery of a cream colour Maruti Van and deposited Rs. 78,000.00 on January 17, 1989 failed to delivery the vehicle to him when his legitimate turn for delivery came but instead effected supply to two others, who had expressed their preference for cream colour vans only subsequent to the date of registration of the petitioner's order. The State Commission has carefully examined all the materials brought on record and come to the conclusion that M/s Vikas Motors Pvt. Ltd., (Opposite Party) being only a dealer was bound to give effect to the instructions issued by the principal namely Maruti Udyog Ltd. As per the instructions issued by the manufacturers regarding the mode in which delivery of vehicle should be effected the Petitioner's turn for delivery had come only on the date when the vehicle was offered to him, though, unfortunately, by the said date the price of the vehicle had undergone an enhancement. M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. has not been impleaded as party to the petition and no claim was putforward against it. In the circumstances the State Commission took the view that no negligence or deficiency in service had been made out as against Opposite Party namely, M/s Vikas Motors Pvt. Ltd., which had merely followed the instructions issued by the manufacturers. This being a pure finding of fact and there being no jurisdictional error made out in the order passed by the State Commission, there is no scope for interference by us with the said order over the exercise of our revisional power.