MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED Vs. D SUJANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not find that-any sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay of 61 days in presenting the appeal, FA. SR. No.3445/1998 by the 2nd opposite party in O. P. No.246/1997 questioning the order of the Cuddapah District Forum dated 19.8.1998. The order of the District Forum was admittedly despatched on 29.8.1998 and it must have been received soon thereafter. It was also stated in the affidavit in support of the present application for condoning the delay given by the Company Secretary and Chief Legal Officer of the petitioner Company (2nd opposite party) that the Company's Counsel sent the grounds of appeal, order copy and stay petition on 15.9.1998 itself. The appeal was presented before this Commission on 30.11.1998. The reason for the delay was stated to be misplacement of the papers and that after it was traced the appeal was presented. This establishes clear lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner. We are, therefore, satisfied that no sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. FA. IA. No.1433/1998 is therefore, dismissed and consequently FA. SR. No.3445/1998 is rejected.

(2.) We have carefully gone through the order of the District Forum sought to be questioned in the appeal. The fact that the complainant in the O. P. booked a Maruti car on 10.1.1997 by paying the entire consideration for the same as on that date i. e. Rs.2,17,831/- to the new dealer of the 2nd opposite party is not in dispute. The fact that by the date of the filing of the complaint before the Cuddapah District Forum i. e.26.6.1997 the car was not delivered even though the complainant was assured that it would be delivered within about two months, is also not in dispute. The District Forum found that during the pendency of the car was delivered to the complainant on 12.11.1997 collecting an additional sum of Rs.21,428/- on the ground that by that date the price of the car was increased to that extent. The receipt of the said sum under Ex. A-5 is not disputed by the opposite parties. The District Forum found that no good reason was given for the delay in the delivery of the car and that the reasons sought to be made out by the opposite parties were without any basis. The District Forum held as follows : "absolutely there is nothing on record to show that it (the 2nd opposite party) called upon the complainant and also Karur Vysya Bank to send the documents like booking deposit receipt and order booking form. At no point of time, it demanded the documents from the complainant, otherwise it had sufficient material with its dealer i. e. , first respondent by the date of termination of its agency regarding the name of the person who applied for the car, her address, etc. , details. Hence, it would have straight away contacted the complainant and delivered the car within time. But it failed to do so till 12.11.1997 i. e. , almost 11 months after the deposit or entire sale price of the car, and it collected the revised price from the complainant. It is not its case that the value of the car ordered for was more than Rs.2,17,831/- as on the date of the complainant sending the D. D to the respondent No.1. Having accepted the demand draft, the respondents are bound to supply the car for the agreed rate alone. It is a concluded contract between the parties and it has no right to charge revised price. It has not reserved right to charge revised price as on the date of delivery of the car. " Thus the reasons given by the 2nd opposite party for the delayed delivery of the car that complainant failed to produce the original booking receipt and order booking form or indemnity bond in lieu thereof, were all rejected as without any basis because no material whatsoever had been placed before the District Forum to establish that such a production was required of the complainant. The record of the District Forum is before us. We find that the District Forum was right in holding that the opposite party did not place any material before it for establishing that there were good reasons for the delayed delivery of the car to the complainant. We also find that the 2nd opposite party had not stated in its counter filed before the District Forum the date when the price of the car was increased. Even in the grounds of appeal in FA. SR. No.3445/1998 the date when the price was increased was not stated. We do not find any ground for interfering with the order of the District Forum in directing the opposite parties to return the sum of Rs.21,428/- together with interest thereon at 15% per annum from 12.11.1997 till the date of payment and also Rs.5,000/- towards damages for the delayed delivery of the car and costs of Rs.1,000/-. Demanding the payment of full consideration amount at the time of booking itself and not delivering the car for months together would amount to unfair trade practice. We are supported in this view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash V/s. Assistant Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and Anr., 1994 3 SCC 504. We followed that decision in Gade Lakshmana Rao V/s. Mahalakshmi Motors Private Limited and Anr. , which also related to delayed delivery of a Tractor. We may also refer to the decisions of the Pondicherry Union Territory Commission in Maruti Udyog Limited V/s. Dr. R. Sabarinathan Nair and Anr. of Haryana State Commission in Maruti Udyog Limited V/s. Sudhir Gautam and of Chandigarh Union Territory Commission in Harish Sharma V/s. Pal Peugeot Limited and Anr. which support the view taken by us. In the circumstances we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the District Forum. Ordered accordingly.