MARUTI UDYOG LTD Vs. FAKIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the same decision of the District Forum and hence were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) The complainant had booked a Maruti Car with the Opposite Parties on 23.10.1986 by depositing a demand draft for Rs.10,000/-. According to the Complainant there was no term in the agreement to pay full price of the car in advance before delivery of the car. But despite this, when his turn came according to the waiting list, the Opposite Parties asked him to pay a sum of Rs.70,314.61 paise by draft which after adjusting Rs.10,000/- already paid at the time of booking would complete the payment of Rs.80,314.61 paise which was the price of the car at that time. The Complainant was also told that the car will be delivered within 4 to 6 weeks after receiving payment. A letter to this effect was received by the Complainant on 26.11.1987. The Complainant did not agree to deposit full price before the car was delivered to him and corresponded with the Opposite Parties about this showing his willingness to make the payment against delivery of the car. According to the Complainant the Opposite Parties were effecting a unilateral change in the terms of the agreement to sell the car by insisting on full payment four to six weeks prior to delivery of the vehicle. The Complainant contended that in absence of any such specific term in the agreement, he was expected to pay the price only against delivery of the car. The Complainant approached the Forum for a direction against payment of the current price to sell the car at the price that was ruling in November-December, 1987 without asking him to furnish an affidavit and proof of residence. Damages to the extent of Rs.10,000/- were also prayed for. This complaint was filed before the Forum on 22.2.1992.2. The Opposite Parties M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. the manufacturers of Maruti Cars and Fairdeal Marwar Garrages Pvt. Ltd. the dealer through whom the booking for the car was made by the Complainant contested the complaint and contended that the Complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') as he had hired no services and has not purchased any goods so far. It was also contended that the reliefs claimed could not be granted under the Act as the reliefs were not covered by Sec.14 (1) of the Act. It was also contended that the complaint was hopelessly belated and deserved to be dismissed as barred by limitation. It was also contended that subject matter of the dispute being of the value of more than Rs.1,00,000/- the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain. It was also contended that the demand of deposit of entire price four to six weeks in advance was followed as a uniform practice and could not be said to be an unfair trade practice.

(3.) The District Forum held that in view of the correspondence exchanged between the parties, the complaint was not belated, that the Complainant was a "consumer" as he had hired the services of the Opposite Parties for supply of the car by depositing Rs.10,000/-, that the complaint fell within the definition of "complaint" under the Act, that the Complainant could claim relief under Sec.14 (1) (d) of the Act as he had hired the service and was complaining of deficiency in service, that the Forum had pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint and that asking for full price of the car four to six weeks prior to delivery of the car amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. On these findings Rs.2000/- was awarded as compensation. Both the parties have come up in appeal against the aforesaid order of the District Forum.