BALDEVBHAI M PATEL Vs. MAHESANA AGRO AUTO MACHINERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant No.1 (Complainant for short) booked a car known as Premier Padmini 137d with opponent, a dealer in car and deposited Rs.15,000/- by demand draft on November 13, 1991. The opponent, on realisation of the demand draft issued priority card in respect of the car booked by the complainant. On May 27, 1992, the opponent informed the complainant to the effect that the car which he had booked was available for delivery and called upon him to pay the balance of Rs.1,62,336/- together with documents as mentioned therein. This letter, though it was dated May 27, 1992 was received by the complainant in August 1992. On receipt of the letter, the complainant paid the balance of Rs.1,62,336/- by demand draft together with necessary documents on August 29, 1992. Premier Automobiles Limited delivered the car to the opponent on March 20,1993. The opponent called upon the complainant to take delivery of the car on total payment of Rs.1,95,520/- and storage and handling charges of Rs.2,537/-. According to the complainant, he was liable to pay only Rs.1,77,336/- and not Rs.1,95,520/- as demanded by the opponent for the price of the car. He had already paid total amount of Rs.1,77,336/- as stated above and, therefore, mere was no question of paying any additional amount towards price of the car as demanded by the opponent. The complainant was also not liable to pay storage and handling charges of Rs.2,537/- as there was no delay on his part in taking delivery of the car. However, in order not to delay the delivery of the car, the complainant paid Rs.20,741 /to the opponent under protest by letter dated May 20,1993. On payment of the said amount of Rs.20,741/- which represented difference in price and storage and handling charges, the car was delivered to the complainant.

(2.) The grievance of the complainant is that he was not liable to pay increased price of the car as he had promptly paid the total price of the car on August 29,1992 on receipt of the communication from the opponent. It was the opponent who delayed the payment of the total price made by the complainant to Premier Automobiles Limited and it was on account of such delay on the part of the opponent that the complainant became liable to pay increased price of the car. It is further contended that the opponent had wrongly charged Rs.2,537/- for storage and handling charges of the car. On the above facts it is urged that the opponent is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has, therefore, claimed the following amounts from the opponent. (a) Interest of Rs.2,250/- at 18% p. a. on deposit of Rs.15,000/-; (b) Interest of Rs.19,000/- on Rs.1,77,632/- illegally utilised by opponent from September 3,1992; (c) Rs.17,888/- representing difference in price; (d) Rs.2,537/- wrongly recovered by way of storage and handling charges; (c) Rs.24,000/- far loss of income for 8 months @ Rs.3,000/- per month; (d) Exemplary damages of Rs.20,000/-; (e) Rs.25,000/- damages for harassment and tension; and (h) Rs.5,000/- by way of cost.

(3.) The defence of the opponent is as follows.3.1 The demand draft of Rs.1,62,336/- sent by the complainant was received by them on September 2,1992. They had credited the said amount in Bank of Baroda, Kurla Branch on the next day i. e. September 3,1992 and that the said amount was forwarded to Premier Auto-mobiles Limited on 2nd/3rd day thereafter There was, therefore, no delay on their part in forwarding the price of the car to Premier Automobiles Limited. Premier Automobiles delivered the car at Bombay on March 20,1993 and they in turn delivered it to the complainant on March 29,1993. Delivery of the car could not be given earlier than March 29,1993 because time was taken in complete check up of the car and other legal formalities. Premier Automobiles Limited had raised the price of the car before its delivery and whatever price which was recovered from the complainant was paid to Premier Automobiles Limited. Therefore, there is no question of paying difference in price to the complainant According to the opponent they were not responsible for the delay in delivery of the car to the complainant. It is, therefore, contended that the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from the opponent and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.