K CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. STANES MOTORS SOUTH INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant against the Order dated 10th November, 1994 of the State Commission by which it set aside the order of the District Forum dismissing his complaint and awarded Rs. 5,000/ - to the complainant as ordinary damages caused by one monthss delay in the delivery of the vehicle and taking into account the increase in price. A further sum of Rs. 2000/ - was also awarded as loss of profit for one month as the complainant could not use his vehicle as a taxi.

(2.) THE facts as gathered from the record are that the complainant obtained a proforma invoice dated 20th November, 1989 from the respondent herein arrayed as opposite party in the complaint for purchase of Ambassador Diesel Car for tourist taxi purpose. The complainant arranged with M/s. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Erode Branch and the said Corporation paid the above amount to the opposite party who acknowledged the receipt of the payment vide their letter dated 28th December, 1989. The opposite party did not deliver the car to the complainant. According to the complainant, opposite party delivered cars to other persons who made payment after 28th December, 1989 i.e. after the complainant had paid the full price of the car. He was delivered car on 28 th February, 1990 but by that time the price of the car has been increased by Rs. 5,203/ - which the complainant paid.

(3.) THE complaint was contested by the opposite party. Its case is that the complainant wanted the Ambassador diesel car under taxi quota. One Ambassador diesel car was delivered to the complainant on 28th February, 1990. The price indicated in the proforma invoice is only the likely price and the purchaser was bound to pay the price prevalent at the time of the delivery and by that time the price had been increased. As the complainant had asked for a car from the taxi quota a specific vehicle earmarking the engine number and chassis number is despatched by the manufacturer for enabling the complainant to claim excise duty refund applicable for a vehicle realised under taxi quota. As there is some likely delay in despatch of car under taxi quota the complainant was advised that the delivery would be only between 6 to 8 weeks and thus there was absolutely no delay at all and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant within 8 weeks as promised. Some other customers might have received the vehicles earlier but those vehicles had been released under normal quota. Only it is under the taxi quota that the customer has to necessarily wait for release of a specific vehicle from the factory and it is not possible to deliver the vehicle to such a customer from the normal quota because it involves refund of excise duty. The opposite party is not responsible for the introduction of entry tax by the Tamil Nadu Government.