SAINI MOTORS Vs. M L GUPTA AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum, Ludhiana on August 20, 1996 allowed complaint filed by M. L. Gupta and Company and directed the opposite party M/s. Saini Motors to pay interest on Rs.1,90,000/- @ 18% per annum from October 6,1994 and at the same rate interest on Rs.21,185.09 from April 19,1995 till payment. A further direction was given to refund a sum of Rs.21,185.09. These amounts were ordered to be paid to the complainant M. L. Gupta and Company. This order has been challenged by the opposite party, Saini Motors, Ludhiana in this appeal.

(2.) On October 6, 1994 M. L. Gupta and Company booked a Maruti A. C. car with the opposite party M/s. Saini Motors, Ludhiana. The entire amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was paid against receipt. The complainant was not given the seniority number at the time of registration of the vehicle. But ultimately on September 19,1995 on charging additional amount of Rs.21,185.09 the vehicle was delivered. The complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party as on the date of delivery of the vehicle initially another vehicle was being allotted to the complainant which was received by the opposite party from the manufacturer before rise in the prices of the car. After such price was increased the complainant was delivered the vehicle, which was received after rise of the prices. In this manner, the opposite party jumped the seniority list already prepared in order to exploit the consumers. Particulars of the vehicle which was available with the opposite party and was not delivered were also given in the complaint. Refund of the excess amount and interest on the amount already charged was claimed as there was undue delay in delivering the car. Before the District Forum, version was submitted by the opposite party denying allegations of the complainant but without specifically mentioning anything about the other car particulars of which were given, which was available with the opposite party, but was not delivered. On the evidence produced by the parties on affidavits and documents, the impugned order was passed.

(3.) In appeal vide order dated September, 30, 1997 an opportunity was allowed to the appellant, the opposite party to produce additional affidavit supported by documents as to when Maruti car, Model MD 308, Chassis No.741568, Engine No.1117810 was received from Maruti Udyog by the opposite party alongwith Cash Memo of the sale of the aforesaid car to the buyer and the copy of the invoice sent by the Maruti Udyog to the dealer. In response of the aforesaid order, affidavit of Minakshi Saini, Partner of M/s. Saini Motors dated October 29, 1997 was produced accompanied by the relevant documents asked for. Another affidavit disputing the documents aforesaid has been filed by Pardeep Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. M. L. Gupta and Company. Specific reference is made to copy of the invoice submitted by Maruti Udyog to M/s. Saini Motors with respect to sending of the aforesaid vehicle to the dealer. Two things are pointed out with regard to the date of this invoice which is purporting to be dated 23.4.1995. As per the objection raised this date at two places in this invoice has been subsequently typed and is not the result of print out from the computer in which the entire invoice has been filled.