PROJECT DIRECTOR Vs. DCM DAEWOO MOTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not in dispute that the complainant i. e. Project Director, Directorate of Oilseeds Research booked a DCM Toyota Dyna Clipper Mini Bus with DCM Daewoo Motors, and deposited an amount of Rs.5,83,082/- on 15.3.95 by way of demand draft. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party assured the complainant that the vehicle would be delivered by 31.3.95, but the opposite party informed the complainant on telephone on 24.5.95 that the vehicle was ready with M/s. Hyderabad Auto Services, Hyderabad for delivery. According to the complainant when the Senior Admn. Officer of the complainant organisation visited the showroom on 26.5.95 for taking delivery, he found that the vehicle was not only an old one but an used one and was also damaged. Thereupon the Project Director and senior officers of the complainant also visited the showroom on 1.6.95 and found that the vehicle was used one and it suffered damage. The complainant sent a fax massage on 26.5.95 to arrange for a new vehicle, as there was no response, another fax message was sent on 1.6.95 to the first opposite party to inform positively by 5.6.95 the probable date by which a showroom conditioned vehicle would be supplied. As there was no response, the complainant by its letter dated 9.6.95 addressed to the Chairman of the first opposite party for personal intervention in arranging delivery of the vehicle. But the complainant received a letter on 14.7.95 informing that the vehicle would be delivered by the end of August, 1995. Even after lapse of seven months after payment the vehicle was not delivered. There was exchange of legal notices and the complaint O. P.87/95 was filed before this Commission to direct the opposite parties to refund the deposit amount of Rs.5,83,082/-together with interest at 24% p. a. from 15.3.95 till the date of payment and also to pay damages in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(2.) Notices were served.3. The second opposite party i. e. M/s. Hyderabad Auto Service filed a counter stating that the complainant neither purchased any goods nor hired the services of the second opposite party. The second opposite party is, therefore, not liable to pay any damages towards mental agony and the mere involvement does not create any contract. The second opposite party no doubt received the demand draft for Rs.5,83,082/- but the demand draft was in favour of the first opposite party and it was sent to the first opposite party. It denied the allegation that the defective vehicle was sought to be delivered and submitted that the complaint is devoid of any merits.4. The first opposite party did not file any counter but engaged an Advocate Mr. M. R. Harsha. Mr. M. R. Harsha also filed vakalath for the second opposite party.5. On behalf of the complainant Annexures 1 to 12 were filed alongwith the complaint.6. Since it is the first opposite party to whom the amount was paid and as he did not file counter that he received the amount and as the amount was received by the second opposite party, evidently since the vehicle was not delivered in time, the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount with interest. It is not in dispute that the opposite parties received the amount of Rs.5,83,082/- on 15.3.95. It is also clear from the allegations in the complaint and the documents filed by the complainant that the Project Director and the Sr. Officers of the complainant organisation visited the showroom on 1.6.95 and noticed that the vehicle suffered with damages and was asked to contact the principals of the opposite party No.1.7. It is submitted by Mr. M. R. Harsha, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that though no rate of interest was stipulated during the period of first three months from the date of payment i. e. delivery period in case of Maruthi Udyog and other established companies, where they sell motor vehicles, the normal stipulation was to pay interest at the rate of 8% p. a. during the first period of three months. Having regard to the practice being followed by other companies like Maruthi Udyog, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for payment of interest at 8% p. a. on Rs.5,83,082/- from 15.3.95 to 1.6.95, the date of refusal by the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle on the ground that it was damaged, though the inspection was made earlier on 26.5.95, it was rejected only on 1.6.95. So far as the period subsequent to 1.6.95 is concerned, we are of the view that it would be equitable and just to direct the opposite parties to pay interest at the rate of 12% p. a. on the deposit amount from 1.6.95 till 15.7.96. We, therefore, consider that the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.5,83,082/-with interest @ 8% p. a. from 15.3.95 to 31.5.92 and from 1.6.95 to 15.7.96 at the rate of 12% p. a. on Rs.5,83,082/-. The opposite parties offered to pay the deposit amount of Rs.5,83,082/- including the interest which comes to Rs.88,042/- towards interest payable at the rates mentioned above for the period as directed above and the cheques for the above said amounts were handed over to the Advocate for complainant.8. In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly. The opposite parties shall pay a further sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards cost of the complaint.