ANBROS MOT Vs. PUSHPA DHANWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 3.11.2003 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (hereinafter, for short, referred to as District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No.90 of 2001, Dr. (Mrs.) Pushpa Dhanwant Singh V/s. The Fiat India Automobiles and Others.

(2.) Case of the complainant is that she purchased a Fiat Uno Diesel-5-Solid White car Engine No. PAU2254015 Chassis No. PAU011873 vide invoice No.72 dated 27.1.1999 from M/s. Ambros Motors Private Ltd. , Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh (O. P.-2 ). She paid a total amount of Rs.4,55,720.85. The grouse of the complainant is that she was charged Rs.59,134.85 in excess of the price of the car on that date as published in Annexure C-8. Terming this excess charging as deficiency in service, she has prayed for refund of Rs.59,134.85 along with interest @ 18% p. a. from 27.1.1999 i. e. , date of delivery of the car and also interest @ 18% p. a. on Rs.4,36,731/- from the date, this amount was credited in the account of O. P. till the date of delivery i. e. , on 27.1.1999. She also sought Rs.1 lac as compensation costs and Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

(3.) The O. P. 's case on the other hand is that the complainant had in fact bought a Car Uno (AC diesel) on 19.10.1998 against priority No.6/013168 and for which she had paid Rs.4,00,000/- through a post-dated cheque on 19.10.1998. However, as she was desirous of purchasing a diesel car with power steering she paid Rs.36,731/- on 18.12.1998 and requested for a Uno Diesel Car with power steering in lieu of the car delivered to her on 19.10.1998. She took the delivery of the replacement car from O. P. No.2 on 10.12.1998. She took the invoice and sale letter of this car without any date on it on the pretext of getting the car registered in 1999 with D. T. O. , Patiala. It has been averred that the price of this car charged from the complainant was Rs.4,55,720.85 and it was the actual sale price of the car on that date and hence there has been no overcharging of price from the complainant.