MARUTI UDYOG LTD Vs. K VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The above mentioned Revision Petitions are against the Order of 7th November, 1992 of the State Commission TamilNadu in Appeal No. 386 of 1992. The Revision Petition No. 308 is filed out of time. The relevant facts briefly are : (i) The respondent placed an order for red colour Maruti Car 800 CC for delivery at Tiruchirapalli. He paid a sum of Rs. 1.16 lakhs (in round) on 21st February, 1991. The balance payable on account of sales-tax, handling charges, insurance registration etc. were to be paid at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The appellant, Maruti Udyog Ltd. had also undertaken to refund the amount paid an advance with interest at 12% in case a customer is unwilling to pay increase in price after an order is booked but before delivery and opts to cancel the booking. The Appellant's case is that no red coloured Maruti car was available for delivery within the tentative delivery period indicated at the time of booking the Order. However, red coloured Maruti car became available at Pondicherry. The undated letter at PP.13 of the paper book, Annexure 'B' to the Revision Petition No. 16 is a letter from the complainant Dr. K. Venkatesan opting to take the delivery of the vehicle from Pondicherry. In his Revision Petition No. 308 of 1993 the Revision Petitioner complainant has not disowned the said letter opting for delivery of the vehicle at Pondicherry. In the circumstances we are unable to appreciate the deficiency in service on the part of Maruti Udyog in these petitions. No red coloured Maruti Car was available for delivery at the relevant time at Tiruchirapalli The extra expense which the complainant claims that he had to incur for taking delivery in Pondicherry viz. transport, charges Rs. 500/-from Pondicherry to Trichi and temporary registration charges at Pondicherry Rs. 500/- has been explained by Maruti Udyog; it has been more than offset by the saving in sales tax, the tax being lower at Pondicherry (3%) than in TamilNadu (6%). Only he had to pay entry tax amounting to Rs. 8500/- to the State of TamilNadu. As such we do not see as to how any extra expenditure has been caused to the complainant Dr. Venkatesan on account of transport and temporary registration charges for which he has been granted Rs. 1,000/- by the State Commission.

(2.) The State Commission has already come to the finding that the Maruti Udyog has not defaulted in delivery of the vehicle and also that the complainant was liable for the escalation i.e. the increased price of the vehicle at the time of delivery.

(3.) From the facts mentioned above, we do not see any deficiency on the part of the appellant Maruti Udyog in making delivery at Pondicherry which was done at the complainant's request and perhaps, was to his benefit. In view of these facts there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Maruti Udyog and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation as awarded by the State Commission, nor to interest at 18% on the amount deposited for the alleged delay in delivery from 21.2.1991 to 1.11.1991. All that he is entitled to is interest at the rate of 12% p.a. in terms of the relevant clause of the sale agreement which the appellant has been ready to give. This appeal is, therefore, accepted and the order of the State Commission is set aside. There is no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.