(1.) This revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of Maruti Udyog Ltd. and affirmed the order of the District Forum. The facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under :
(2.) The complainant, in response to an advertisement by the petitioner/opposite party, M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., providing a Maruti Car free of excise duty for taxi, placed an order with the dealer of the opposite party on 20.5.1992 and, according to the advertisement, the car was to be delivered within four weeks. The complainant made the payment of Rs. 1,27,946/- as per the quotation of the opposite party No. 1 on 23.5.1992. The complainant, after the expiry of one month, received a letter from opposite party No. 1 to take the said ordered car not from taxi-quota but from the ordinary quota, and the complainant purchased the said car from ordinary quota and the dealer, opposite party No. 2, had taken an additional amount of Rs. 32,482/- from the complainant. This has Rs. 92,482/- (Rs. 32,482/- plus damages of Rs. 60,000/-) from the opposite parties. On notice being issued, the opposite parties filed their replies. The stand taken by them is that the complainant had changed the purchase from taxi quota to ordinary quota and hence no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint before the District Forum, that the excess amount of Rs. 32,882/- received from the complainant was towards the excise duty on cars for ordinary quota which cannot be refunded. The opposite party No. 2, in its reply took the same plea that the complainant had willingly changed its order from taxi quota to non-taxi quota and the car was taken delivery by the complainant without any protest and the additional amount of Rs. 32,482/- was received legally from the complainant. Before the District Forum the complainant filed an affidavit and also written arguments. The opposite parties neither filed any document nor gave evidence on affidavits. The District Forum, upon hearing both the sides held that the complainant placed an order with the opposite parties for purchase of taxi and the opposite parties had accepted the amount of Rs. 1,27,946/- towards the price of the car which should have been delivered within four weeks, i.e. on or before 23.6.1992. The District Forum further held that no plausible explanation was coming forth from the opposite parties as to why the car was not delivered to the complainant within the period of four weeks which period expired on 22.6.1992 and according to the admission of the opposite parties the scheme was closed on 1.7.1992. The District Forum held that this act on the part of the opposite parties constituted an unfair trade practice. While coming to the said conclusion the District Forum observed, relying on a letter dated 13.7.1992 written by opposite party No. 1, that if any customer was not willing to take delivery of car from ordinary quota, then in such circumstances the opposite party No. 1 had stated to agree to give the car from taxi-quota even after the closure of the car-taxi quota scheme with certain conditions. While rebutting the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had purchased the car willingly from ordinary quota, the District Forum relied upon the letter dated 6.7.1992 by which the opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 had closed the scheme to allot the car from taxi-quota and, therefore, the complainant had given consent to change the order from taxi-quota to ordinary quota. The District Forum also referred another letter dated 13.7.1992 which was written by the opposite party No.,1 to opposite party No. 2, the dealer, which states that if any customer is not willing to purchase car from ordinary quota, in that case the dealer can issue a certificate in that respect and can allot the car from taxi- quota, which fact was not brought to the notice of the complainant by the opposite party No. 2. In view of the above discussion that District Forum came to the conclusion that the opposite parties had adopted unfair trade practice and that the sum of Rs. 32,482/- was wrongly charged from the complainant as additional amount and allowed the prayer of the complainant for refund of the amount of Rs. 34,482/-. The other prayer of the complainant for grant of Rs. 60,000/- towards damages was rejected by the District Forum for want of evidence. In view of what is discussed above, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 32,482/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite parties went in appeal to the State Commission, where the order of the District Forum was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. Now the opposite parties are in revision before us.
(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. We have also perused the order of the District Forum as well as the State Commission along with the other material placed before us carefully. We find that although the petitioner had informed the dealer, Kiran Motors Ltd. to give the car from the taxi-quota, if the petitioner is not willing to purchase from ordinary quota by letter dated 13.7.1992, even after the scheme, the dealer withheld this key information from the complainant. The dealer collected additional amount from the complainant without any whisper regarding the contents of the petitioner's letter dated 13.7.1992.