PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. KAMLA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal as well as Appeal No.219 of 1992 arise out of a common order and therefore they have been heard together and they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) These two appeals are directed against order dated 26.9.92 passed by the District Forum, Patna in Complainant Case No.198 of 1992 in which the appellant in these two appeals were the opposite party and the respondent of these two appeals who is the same person was complainant before the District Forum.

(3.) For the disposal of this appeal the facts of the case may be briefly stated. The complainant booked order for a Premier Padmini Car (Delux) on 8.7.91 with the Auto Distributors- O. P. No.1 who happens to be an authorised dealer of that car at Patna and paid Rs.1,47,540.84 through two Bank Drafts which were received by one Sri Naveen Kumar Jain who happens to be an employee, of O. P. No.1 and a receipt in respect thereof was issued to the complainant. On 19.7.91 on a telephone talk to O. P. No.2 the complainant was assured that on receipt of full price of the car through Bank Draft till 13.7.91 the car will be supplied to the consumers on pre-budget price as such decision has been taken by the company. The complainant was assured by Sri P. R. Sharma, Manager of O. P. No.1 that the complainant will be getting the car on the pre-budget price. But on 10.8.91 through a letter written by Sri Sharma, Manager of O. P. No.1 the complainant was informed that due to bad weather the Bank Draft sent by him reached on 18.7.91 and, therefore, the supply of car on the pre-budget price has become doubtful. On 16.8.91 the complainant was informed by O. P. No.2 that the Bank Draft was received on 19.7.91 at Bombay, it was not possible for the company to supply the car on the pre-budget price. On 20.8.91 letter No.885/91 was received by the complainant that as the draft sent by him reached Bombay on 19.7.91 the complainant has to pay an additional amount of Rs.27,456.87 as it was not possible to supply to him the car on the pre-budget price. The complainant has further averred that though other persons has been supplied car by O. P. No.2 on pre-budget price in similar situation the O. P. has illegally refused to supply the car to the complainant on the pre-budget price.