NORTON MOTORS Vs. SUBHASH JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Norton Motors appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar partly allowing the complaint of the respondent-consumer. In view of the limited argument raised on behalf of the appellants by their learned Counsel, the facts may be noticed with relative brevity. Way back on the 30th of November, 1984, the respondent had booked a Priya Scooter with the appellant. However, he heard nothing from the appellants with regard to its delivery despite repeated visits to their office time and again to verify about the maturity of his booking. Ultimately he formally wrote to the appellant on 2nd of November, 1989 to know about the fate of his booking. It was in response thereto that he was informed that on the 1st of June, 1987 by some communication he had been directed to deposit the balance price of the scooter and he had not done so. It was the firm stand of the complainant that he had never received any such communication dated the 1st of June, 1987 and getting no redress from the appellants, he preferred a complaint before the District Forum seeking the relief of the release of the Priya Scooter at the prevailing price in 1987 and further damages and expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

(2.) In their reply, the appellants admitted the factum of the booking and took up the plea that the letter dated 1st of June, 1987 was sent to the respondent and in case it was not received by him, the appellants were not answerable for the same. It was the case that the respondent had not turned up to collect the delivery after the alleged intimation on the date afore-mentioned and on that score all liability was denied.

(3.) The District Forum on a somewhat exhaustive consideration of the materials came to the conclusion that the stand of the appellant and the manufacturers M/s. Maharashtra Scooters with regard to the intimation letter to the respondent on the 1st of June, 1987 being sent by registered post (which was necessary) was not established and held the appellants liable for the default, and directed the delivery of a Priya Scooter to the respondent on its prevailing price. However, the claim of damages and compensation for Rs.20,000/- was declined.