NAVBHARAT MOTOR AGENCY SOLAPUR Vs. KAUSHIKBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was one of the opposite parties before the District Forum, where the respondent along with 3 others had filed, four separate complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of the second respondent.

(2.) Very briefly, the facts leading to filing of the case are that the complainant with a view to purchase a car manufactured by the Premier Automobiles Company Ltd. Mumbai, had deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000 with the petitioner, who was the dealer of the manufacturer. Since the car was not being delivered and no timelimit was indicated with respect to the delivery, the complainant asked for refund of money. On not getting this payment, first respondent along with three others filed 4 separate complaints before the District Forum, which were dismissed. The respondent/complainant before us, namely, Mr. Kaushikbhai Ishwarbhai Patel, filed an appeal before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner and the manufacturer for refund of Rs. 20,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 8.9.1993 till realization along with compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost of Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed this petition before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and find that undisputed facts of the case are that the draft was prepared by the complainant in the name of manufacturer, which was sent and received by the manufacturer. Since the car was not being delivered, perhaps on account of manufacturing problems, the car could not be delivered. For this deficiency, the petitioner, who is only a dealer, cannot be held responsible and cannot be said to be deficient in rendering service to the complainant.