GLOBE SERVICE STATION Vs. PAL-PEUGEOT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant submitted an application to respondent No.2, namely, M/s. Vivek Automobiles Ltd. , for allotment of Peugeot 309 car along with a cheque for booking amount of Rs.25,000/- on 28th October, 1995. In response thereto, Priority No.61 was allotted for delivery of the car. Subsequently, the applicant deposited the balance amount of Rs.3,90,928/- vide cheque No.192866 dated 12.4.1996 with respondent No.2 who acknowledged receipt of the same vide receipt No.000867 dated 13.4.1996. It has been stated by the applicant that the payment of Rs.3,90,928/- was made on a representation made by the respondent No.2 that the car will be delivered within six weeks from the date of full payment. Having failed to receive the delivery of the car within the allegedly promised period of six weeks, the applicant sent a letter dated 8.6.1996 to the General Manager of respondent No.1 and sent a copy of the same to respondent No.2. There being no response to the said communication, the applicant wrote another letter to respondent No.1 for looking into the grievance and for ensuring the delivery of the car.

(2.) It is further stated that respondent No.1 subsequently informed the applicant vide letter dated 20.7.1996 that the price of the said car had been raised from Rs.4,13,173/- to Rs.4,48,012/- with effect from 8.6.1996. The applicant deposited the balance amount of Rs.34,839.23 with respondent No.2 on 22.7.1996 under protest.

(3.) The contention of the applicant is that failure on the part of the respondents to deliver the car within the allegedly promised time and subsequent revision in the price of the car is an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Sec.36a of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 [referred to as the MRTP Act hereinafter. It has also been alleged that non-payment of interest on the advance payment made by the applicant also constitutes an unfair trade practice because the car was actually delivered three months after the date of receiving of full payment as against the promised time of six weeks. It is further alleged that according to the applicant's information, the respondent No.2 withheld the delivery of the vehicle to collect enhanced price from the applicant. Thus aggrieved, the applicant filed an application in the MRTP Commission for grant of compensation amounting to Rs.1,57,340/- which includes excess payment of Rs.34,840/- due to increase in the price and interest amounting to Rs.2,500/- calculated at the rate of 24% per annum. The applicant has also claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation for depriving the applicant of having the vehicle in time and a further sum of Rs.1 lakh by way of mental agony and harassment.