PUSHPA GUPTA Vs. AGANALL TRADERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the above mentioned three appeals, filed under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have common facts and also raise common questions for consideration, the same with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant, have been heard together on the question of admission.

(2.) In all the above mentioned three appeals, the appellants had filed separate complaints under Sec.12 of the Act before District Forum No. I, averring that the appellants had booked Maruti 800/ac cars, being manufactured by respondent No.2, with respondent No.1 on 28.12.1994 after raising loan from Bank of America. It is alleged that the respondents had made a promise to the appellants for the delivery of the cars in question within four months. The grievance of the appellants, in the complaints, filed by them before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that against their bookings the cars in question, instead of being delivered to the appellants, were disposed of by the respondents in open market on good premium/black money. Further grievance of the appellants was that in their case due to the above unfair trade practice there was delay in the delivery of vehicles and in the meantime the prices of the vehicle also increased as a result of which the appellants were burdened with increased cost and avoidable interest. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellants filed separate complaints before the District Forum claiming compensation/damages for the harassment/sufferings caused to them.

(3.) The claim of the appellants, in the District Forum was contested by the respondents. The stand taken by the respondents in the District Forum was that on 26.12.1994, respondent No.2 released a public notice to the effect that seniority of customers, who booked the vehicles from 26.12.1994 to 28.12.1994 would be determined on the basis of draw of lots and delivery of the vehicles to such persons would be made as per the seniority of the customer in terms of priority assigned after the draw of lots. It was stated on behalf of the respondents that delivery of the vehicles in question to the appellants by respondent No.1 was made strictly in accordance with the above list. It was also contended that no firm commitment to deliver the vehicles within four months from the date of booking was given by the respondents to the appellants.