PER SHRI.S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 8/2/2002 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in CC No.530/2000.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that……
3. Appellant/Original Opponent No.2 M/s Seva Automotive Ltd. is a dealer and Respondent No.2/Original Opponent No.1 Maruti Udyog Ltd. is the manufacturer of vehicles. On 12/12/1998, the Respondent No.1/Original complainant Shri Manikrao Sahare booked a Maruti Omni vehicle with the appellant by paying Rs.1,81,526/- and agreed to pay remaining price of the vehicle of Rs.24,330/- on 30.12.1998. The price of the vehicle was Rs.2,05,960/-. Accordingly the complainant paid remaining price of the vehicle of Rs.24,330/- on 30.12.1998. Therefore, the car booked by him was registered in his name on 1/1/1999 but its delivery was taken on 4/1/1999 by the appellant. It is contended by the complainant/Respondent No.1 that on 1/1/1999, price of the vehicle was reduced by Rs.40,000/-. However, he could not get the benefit of reduced price. Therefore, by notice dated 16/1/1999, complainant claimed refund of amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @18% and compensation of Rs.25,000/-, but appellant and Respondent No.2 failed to comply the notice. Therefore, the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum claiming refund of amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @18% and compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1000/- as miscellaneous expenses and notice charges.
4. By separate reply, both the opponents i.e.appellant and Respondent No.2 resisted the claim contending interalia that the transaction in question was completed on 30/12/1998 and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get benefit of the price revised w.e.f. 1/1/1999. It is specifically contended by the appellant/Opponent No.1 that the complainant had booked the vehicle under ‘Gold coin’ scheme which was valid upto 30/12/1998 only and received the gold coin. It is not disputed that the price of the vehicle was reduced w.e.f. 1.1.1999 but it was contended that it was reduced by Rs.11,679/- and not by Rs.40,000/-. It is contended that as per the agreement, the complainant paid the remaining price of the vehicle on 30/12/1998 and, therefore, on the same day, the vehicle was transferred in his name vide invoice No.50867, however, it was registered with the RTO on 1/1/1999. It is submitted that on 30/12/1998 itself the vehicle was ready for delivery and the appellant insisted the complainant to take the delivery on the same day, but the complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 4/1/1999 as per his desire choosing an auspicious day. Thus, according to the appellant, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of reduced price of the vehicle. It is submitted that the complaint is without cause of action and is not tenable etc. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
5. On hearing both the sides and considering the documents on record, the District Consumer Forum Nagpur partly allowed the complaint directing the opponents to refund amount of Rs.11,679/- to the complainant with interest @12% w.e.f. 30/12/1998 till realization of the amount.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the opponent No.2 filed this appeal.
7. We heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the copy of impugned judgment and order as well as copies of the delivery memo, invoice, copies of the complaint and written version submitted by the opponents before the District Consumer Forum and also the written notes of arguments submitted by the complainant/Respondent No.1.
8. The undisputed facts are that, the appellant is a dealer and Respondent No.2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle. On 12/12/1998, the Respondent No.1/Original complainant booked a Maruti Omni vehicle with the appellant by paying Rs.1,81,526/- and agreed to pay remaining price of the vehicle of Rs.24,330/- on 30.12.1998. The then prevailing price of the vehicle was Rs.2,05,960/-. It is also admitted that the complainant had booked the car under gold coin scheme and received the gold coin. The car booked by the complainant was registered in his name on 1/1/1999. It is admitted that on 1/1/1999, price of the vehicle was reduced by Rs.11,679/- by Respondent No.2/Ori.Opponent No.1. The crux in this matter is as to whether the transaction between the parties was completed on 30/12/1998 and if not, whether the complainant/Respondent No.1 is entitled to get benefit of the reduced price of the vehicle.
9. Mr.Vishwarupe, counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that when the complainant/Respondent Nof.1 had booked the car under “Gold Coin Scheme’ which was valid up to 30/12/1998 only, and he has also received the gold coin, he is not entitled to get benefit of reduced price of the vehicle. Secondly, it is contended that the gold coin scheme was up to 30/12/1998 and on the same day the complainant paid the balance consideration and on receiving the payment, the appellant prepared invoice and was ready to deliver the vehicle to the complainant on the same day, but the complainant chose an auspicious day as per his desire and took the delivery of the vehicle on 4/1/1999. Thus, according to the appellant, the transaction was completed on 30/12/1998 and hence the Respondent is not entitled to get benefit of reduced price of the vehicle.
10.Per contra, Respondent/complainant Manikrao Sahare, who is a practicing advocate, denied submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that though he had booked the vehicle under gold coin scheme and also received the gold coin, no specific period was fixed for that scheme. He denied that the appellant was ready to deliver the vehicle on 30/12/1998 but he chose to take the delivery on 4/1/1999 being an auspicious day. It is contended that as the vehicle was not ready for delivery on 30/12/1998, he was required to take delivery on 4/1/1999 and hence, as per terms and conditions on the delivery memo, the appellant should have charged the price prevailing on the date of delivery i.e. the reduced price of the vehicle. In support of this contention, Respondent diverted our attention to the condition No.”C” of the delivery memo which reads as under…
11. “Price charged to me/us is as per the prevalent price at the time of actual delivery and I/We have paid the amount after fully satisfying myself/ourselves about the prevalent price.”
12. This copy of the delivery memo, which is not disputed, clearly indicates that though this delivery memo was prepared on 30/12/1998, it was issued on 4/1/1999 and, accordingly the complainant/Respondent put the date as 4/1/1999 below his signature. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that the delivery memo was prepared on 30/12/1998. Moreover, the undisputed copy of the invoice No.50887 also reflects that it was issued on 4/1/1999. If really, the appellant would have kept the vehicle ready for delivery on 30/12/1998, it would have prepared and issued the invoice to the complainant on 30/12/1998 only though the complainant would have shown his willingness to take the delivery of the vehicle on 4/1/1999 being an auspicious day as per his choice. Further, if the vehicle was ready for delivery on 30/12/1998 and its invoice was prepared on the same day, the appellant would have sent the vehicle to RTO office on the same day for registration, but no explanation is given by the appellant as to why the vehicle was registered on 1/1/1999 when the appellant had received the entire price on 30/12/1998 itself. Therefore, we decline to accept the contention of the appellant that on 30/12/1998 itself, the transaction in question was completed, but the complainant/respondent himself was not ready to take the delivery of the vehicle on that day etc.
13. Moreover, though it is the contention of the appellant that the complainant/respondent No.1 received benefit of Gold Coin Scheme and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of reduced price of the vehicle, it is neither pleaded nor disclosed anywhere that the Gold Coin scheme was up to the period 30/12/1998 only, and, therefore, the complainant/Respondent made payment of balance price of the vehicle on 30/12/1998. Therefore, though complainant/respondent No.1 received benefit of Gold Coin Scheme, when, admittedly the price of the vehicle was reduced before receiving the delivery of the vehicle, it can not be disputed that the complainant is entitled to get the refund of reduced price amount.
14. For the foregoing reasons, it is obvious that the learned members of the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, by considering the facts of the case and documents on record, rightly allowed the claim of the complainant partly directing the opponents to refund the reduced price i.e. Rs.11,679/- to the complainant. Hence no interference is warranted.
15. In the result, the appeal is being devoid of any merits, deserve to be dismissed.
16. Hence the following order…
ORDER
1) Appeal is dismissed.
2) Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Delivered on 03/10/2011.
