AASHISH AMARLAL Vs. MANAGER SOLAR AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the complainant and perusing the records, the Commission delivered the following:

(2.) The complainant had booked a Maruthi Van by depositing a Fixed Deposit of Rs.35,000/- on 29.5.1990 with the Respondent. He was intimated by a letter dated 26.7.1990 that the Maruthi Van was allotted to him and that he should pay the amount within 20.8.1990. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.1,12,801.73 on 28.7.1990 to the Respondent. On the date of deposit the complainant changed his mind and wanted the Maruthi Van of Cairo Dust colour instead of white which he had booked for earlier. Till the date of the complaint, the Van was not allotted to him. Hence, he has filed this complaint for the relief which the Commission can give him.

(3.) The Respondent has sent a written statement by post contending interalia that due to change in colour, the Omni asked for by the complainant could not be given to him intime; that the production of the Maruthi vehicles was suspended for over a fortnight in the month of September, 1990 for rearranging the premises for production of Maruthi 1000 CC; that there was a strike in M/s. Punjab Scooters Ltd. , who are making seats for Maruthi Omni; that if the complainant had not changed the colour choice on 28.7.1990 he would have got the vehicle on 7.8.1990 itself and that 12% interest beyond the period of 7 days from the date of payment till the date of invoice is paid to the complainant according to the policy of Maruthi Udyog Ltd. The complainant admits that he took delivery of the vehicle of the colour he wanted on 29.11.1990. He has filed a Memo stating that he does not challenge the escalation in the price and that M. U. L. , New Delhi need not be made a party. Hence the application filed by him for making MUL as a party is dismissed.