(Pronouned on 18.07.2012)

Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member

             In this appeal Original o.p. has impugned the judgement & order dtd.04.02.2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Amravati in consumer complaint No.CC/95/55 partly allowing the complaint, directing the appellant to repay amount of Rs.32,951/- to the complainants / respondents with interest @ 9% p.a., etc. and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.

                    The appellant / original o.p. No.1 is a motor manufacturing company and respondent No.4 / original o.p.No.2 is dealer of Appellant / o.p.No.1

          The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-

1.      Respondent / complainant – deceased Mohan had purchased vehicle i.e. chassis of Delux Luxury Bus from the appellant / o.p. No.1 through respondent No.4 / o.p. No.2 – M/s Jaika Motors Ltd., who is a dealer, for a consideration of Rs.4.17 Lac. On 10.06.1994 he obtained quotation from the dealer i.e. o.p.No.2 / respondent No.4 and booked the vehicle by making payment of Rs.1.00 Lac as an advance. Thereafter, deceased Mohan received a telephone message from the dealer i.e. o.p.No.2, informing him that the vehicle is available with it and asked him to deposit balance amount of consideration Rs.3.17 Lac. Therefore, on 20.10.1994 he paid Rs.3.17 Lac to the dealer vide receipt No.1730. However, he did not get the delivery of the vehicle till 27.11.1994. Thereafter, on 28.11.1994 respondent No.2 demanded additional amount of Rs.32,951/-, informing that the price of the vehicles are increased w.e.f. 01.11.1994. Therefore, he paid additional amount of Rs.32,951/- and thereafter on 28.11.1994 he received the delivery of the vehicle. According to the complainant / respondent, though it was agreed to purchase the vehicle for Rs.4.17 Lac, he paid additional amount of Rs.32,951/- on demand of appellant / o.p. It is submitted that the prices of the vehicle were increased after he made the full payment and therefore, the o.ps / appellant has no right to claim additional increased price of vehicle. Therefore, he demanded the excess amount by filing the consumer complaint.

2.      Pending the complaint, complainant Mohan died and his LRs respondent Nos.2, 3 are brought on record.

3.      In response to the complaint notice o.ps. appeared before the District Consumer Forum, Amravati and resisted the complaint vide their joint Written Statement, denying the claim in toto. However, it is not disputed that on 10.06.1994  deceased Mohan booked the vehicle by depositing Rs.1.00 Lac. It is also not disputed that while booking the vehicle the price of the vehicle was at Rs.4.17 Lac. Moreover, it is not disputed that on receiving telephonic message from the dealer on 20.10.1994 deceased Mohan paid the balance amount of Rs.3.17 Lac. However, the vehicle was not delivered. Thereafter the price of the vehicle increased w.e.f. 01.11.1994 and thereafter the appellant demanded additional amount Rs.32,951/- and on 28.11.1994 deceased paid additional amount and received the delivery of vehicle. It is submitted by o.p. that as the prices of the vehicle were increased before the delivery of vehicle, deceased accepted the increased price and paid the additional amount without protest and therefore he is not entitled to claim refund of any amount. They have denied all other adverse averments made by the respondent / complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.

4.      On hearing both the sides and considering the documents on record, District Consumer Forum, Amravati held that while booking the vehicle the price of the vehicle was fixed @ Rs.4.17 Lac however and as the prices of the vehicle were increased after making full payment by the complainant the appellant / o.p. was not entitled to claim any amount towards additional price from complainant – deceased Mohan. But as the complainant was in need of vehicle for his business he made the payment of additional price of the vehicle on demand of o.p / appellant. In keeping with these findings, District Consumer Forum, Amravati partly allowed the complaint as noted above.

5.      Feeling aggrieved by the said judgement & order orginal o.p.No.1 has filed this appeal.

6.      Almost all the facts are not disputed. However, the only question is as to whether the appellant was entitled to claim the increased price of the vehicle though the complainant - deceased Mohan had made full payment towards the price of the vehicle before the date of rise in prices of the vehicle.

7.                Mr Khanzode, Ld. Counsel for the appellant giving much trace on the Quotation Form, submitted that while booking the vehicle the price was not fixed. According to him, price prevailing at the time of delivery would be applicable irrespective of date of receipt of payment as mentioned at the foot note of the Quotation Form, etc. It is submitted that though complainant - deceased Mohan made full payment on 20.10.1994 on receiving intimation from the dealer the same was not final price as the delivery of the vehicle was not given that day. According to him the delivery of the vehicle was given on 28.11.1994 i.e. after rise of price w.e.f. 01.11.1994 and therefore, the appellant has rightly claimed the additional amount towards the increased price of the vehicle and complainant – deceased Mohan also accepted it and paid the additional amount without protest. He has also tried to support his contention by relying on the decision of National Commission in the case of M/s Modern Automobiles Vs. Hari Mohan Swami reported in I-1993(1) – CPR – 181 in which it is held that price of the car had not been fixed by or under any law nor any price is displayed on it and therefore, the purchaser is liable to pay the increased price prevailing at the time of taking the delivery of the car etc. But with due respect, this authority cannot be application to the present case. Because though in the case of M/s Modern Automobiles – (supra) the respondent made payment prior to the date of rise in price and there was delay in delivery of the vehicle on the part of appellant / o.p., the price of the vehicle was not fixed at the time of booking, on the contrary, it reflects that the respondent / purchaser was informed by the manufacturer that in normal course the vehicle was expected to be delivered immediately after payment but unforeseen circumstances due to which delivery may be delayed by few days. Therefore, it is held by the National Commission that manufacturer is entitled to claim the additional amount towards the increased price when the prices were rise after making full payment. In the present case, on perusal of Quotation Form it reflects that the price of the vehicle was fixed while booking the vehicle. Not only this, but it is also admitted by the appellant in its additional Written Statement. A bare glance at the copy of additional Written Statement it reflects that the appellant has clearly admitted in Para No.1 that deceased Mohan booked the vehicle for Rs.4.17 Lac with o.p.No.2, who is the dealer of appellant and it is also mentioned in Para No.1 of original Written Statement, which falsify the contention of the appellant / o.p. that respondent was liable to pay the increased price of the vehicle. 

8.                Apart from the above facts, it is submitted by Adv.Mr N B Kalantri for the respondent that on 20.10.1994 deceased Mohan made full payment and on receiving telephonic message from the respondent No.4 / o.p.No.2 – dealer that the vehicle is ready for delivery and he should make the balance payment, he made balance payment with a hope to take delivery of the vehicle on same day, but the delivery was not given. On perusal of the copies of receipts of payment dtd. 06.10.1994 and 20.10.1994, we find that in first receipt dtd.06.10.1994 for Rs.1.00 Lac the word “FULL”, which is above the word “PART” is scored out, whereas in second receipt dtd.20.10.1994 for Rs.3.17 Lac neither the word FULL nor PART is scored out. Therefore, there can be no other inference except that the complainant made full payment towards the price of the vehicle and it was accepted by the dealer.

9.                It is not the contention of the appellant that respondent deceased Mohan was informed about causing any delay in delivery of the vehicle after receipt of the payment on 20.10.1994. On the contrary it is admitted by the appellant that intimation was given to the complainant that delivery of the vehicle would be made after receipt of balance amount. Therefore, on 20.10.1994 complainant – deceased Mohan made payment of Rs.3.17 Lac. Not only this, but in Para No.4 of the Written Statement the appellant / o.p. has mentioned that the tentative date of delivery of the vehicle was given to complainant – deceased Mohan on 08.10.1994 and only thereafter when the appellant felt that they are in a position to give the delivery they had accepted the amount of Rs.3.17 Lac on 20.10.1994, which shows that the appellant accepted the amount as full payment towards the price of vehicle and therefore, the subsequent events about causing the delay in delivery of the vehicle and rise of the price of the vehicle cannot be considered. On the contrary, it can be inferred that the o.p. No.2 / respondent No.4 intentionally caused the delay in delivery of the vehicle to claim additional price, expecting the rise in price of the vehicle. It may be that the appellant had received any intimation for rising the prices of vehicles.

10.      Any how, since it is obvious from the evidence on record that on 20.10.1994 itself, the o.ps received the full price of the vehicle and they had agreed to give the delivery immediately. Therefore, they are not entitled to get any additional amount towards the increased price of the vehicle w.e.f. 01.11.1994. Accordingly, the District Consumer Forum, Amravati has rightly held. Hence, no interference is warranted.

11.      In the result, the appeal is being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed.

          Hence, the following order:-

ORDER