MUTHU SWAMI Vs. P R J ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE complainant Muthu Swami, an auto rickshaw driver surrendered the auto rickshaw No. DBR-2406 under the scheme of Delhi Government on 7. 8. 2000 for purchasing new auto rickshaw using CNG as a fuel. He obtained loan from the bank and deposited Rs. 1,251 as a booking amount and paid Rs. 77,053 as full purchase price to the proprietor of M/s. P. R. J. Enterprises. As auto rickshaw was not delivered within 15 days he filed a complaint. Respondent while accepting the booking amount and payment of the cost of auto rickshaw submitted that no assurance was given that auto rickshaw will be delivered within 15 days. He submitted that vehicle was to be purchased under Sales Tax Exemption Scheme (hereafter referred to as the scheme) which was valid till 31. 3. 2001 and the complainant insisted on making the payment and hence the deposit was accepted. As there was heavy rush all the deliveries were not possible till 31. 3. 2001. When the turn of the complainant came scheme was over and hence he was asked to pay the required Sales Tax but he insisted to take delivery under Sales Tax Exemption Scheme. The complainant approached the concerned authorities, Chief Minister of Delhi but could not secure Sales Tax Exemption Certificate. Hence the auto rickshaw under the scheme could not be supplied to him.

(2.) THE District Forum held that though respondent could not deliver the auto rickshaw as the scheme has expired it should not have withheld the cost price of the auto rickshaw which tentamounts to unfair trade practice. Accordingly, the Forum directed the respondent to pay the deposited amount along with 15 per cent interet p. a. from the date of deposit i. e. , 19. 2. 2001 till the date of payment along with Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as costs. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the complainant filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission observed that grievance of the appellant can be remedied by directing the respondent to consider the prayer of the appellant who is a poor auto rickshaw driver for delivering the auto reckshaw on payment of prevailing price within one month. Otherwise, the impugned order will become operative and enforceable. Dissatisfied with the order of State Commission complainant has filed this revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the revision petitioner submitted before us that though the respondent had promised delivery within 15 days from the date of booking, he did not deliver the auto rickshaw. In the meantime the scheme had expired. Indian Overseas Bank had given money directly to the dealer. He submitted that a direction may be given to the respondent to deliver the auto rickshaw at the old price. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that no assurance of delivery within 15 days was given. Despite caution from the respondent the complainant insisted on depositing the amount with the respondent and the respondent strictly followed the policy of 'first come first serve basis' in delivering auto rickshaw. The complainant was asked to bring Sales Tax Exemption Certificate or to pay the then existing price along with Sales Tax. He declined this offer at that point of time. He moved from pillar to post to get exemption certificate but failed. Record of the case shows that complainant himself is responsible for his misfortune. He should have paid Sales Tax after the expiry of the Scheme.