PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellant/OP against the order, dated 21.7.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 156 of 2010 vide which, it accepted the complaint and directed the OP to return the amount of Rs.220/- and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation, Rs.2200/- as costs of litigation alongwith Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant, for setting up a false story, within 30 days, failing which, the OP was to be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the complaint i.e. 9.3.2010 till its payment to the complainant.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant booked a Maruti Swift Desire VXI Car on 5.11.2008 with the OP and deposited Rs.50,000/- as booking amount for which, the OP issued receipt No.3379 dated 5.11.2008 and a booking form was also signed by the complainant and the sales executive of the OP on the same day.  It was stated that as per the terms and conditions of booking form, the interest was to be paid, on the amount of deposit, from the date of deposit to the date of delivery less 7 days and the amount of interest was to be adjusted in the invoice itself.  The complainant was in touch with the OP regarding the date and time of delivery of the car and on intimation from the OP, the complainant took delivery of the car on 5.2.2009, after depositing the requisite amount of Rs.5,13,428/-. The OP issued invoice No.VSL08001605, but adjustment of interest, as per the terms & conditions referred to above was not allowed. However, it was verbally informed by the OP that the interest amount came to be Rs.1364/- for 83 days @ 12% p.a., which would be paid later on by a separate cheque.  It was further stated that when the amount of interest was not remitted to the complainant, even after two months, he made a number of calls to the General Manager and the Sales Manager of the OP, but to no avail. The complainant also met Mr.Pradip Sheoran, Sales Manager of the OP, in person, on three occasions and reminded him regarding non-payment of interest, but there were only false promises, as the OP remained totally indifferent and insensitive to the terms and conditions of sale. It was further stated that one year had almost passed, from the date of purchase of the car, but the interest, as promised by the OP, was not yet paid to the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 1.2.2010 to the OP but no avail.  It was further stated that the abovesaid acts of the OP, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OP, wherein, it admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the booking was accepted by the OP, as per the terms and conditions contained in Annexure R-1. It was also agreed to between the parties that the terms & conditions of the booking would be governed by the policy issued by the MUL.  It was not disputed that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 5.2.2009 and he was entitled to compensation/interest amount of Rs.1144/- as per MUL Policy. The OP was unable to give the cash discount and offered the payment through a separate cheque dated 8.3.2010 for Rs.1144/- but the complainant refused to accept the same. It was further stated that the complainant was not entitled to interest for 83 days rather he was entitled to interest for 69 days. On 10.3.2010, the complainant had accepted the said cheque of Rs.1144/-. It was further stated that the complainant was not entitled to interest over interest and/or another compensation etc.  All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.       The learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the order.  

6.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP, has filed the instant appeal. 

7.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have perused the record, carefully.

8.       It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/OP, that the appellant always offered the amount of Rs.1144/-, to the respondent/complainant and he refused to accept the same with ulterior motive. He further submitted that the complainant was insisting upon the appellant to pay the amount in cash but it (appellant) was not ready to pay the amount in cash. It was further contended that the learned District Forum did not appreciate the facts that Maruti Udyog Limited was one of the necessary parties but the said manufacturer was not impleaded as a party, so the complaint was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It was further contended that the learned District Forum further erred in concluding  that the complainant was entitled to Rs.220/-. The said amount was against the Maruti Policy and not payable. It was further contended that the appellant was bound by the instructions of the manufacturer and it was not open to it, to act against the said policy. It was further contended that the appellant had stated the correct facts, before the learned District Forum, but the Forum grossly erred in concluding that the story of the complainant was correct and heavy compensation was wrongly awarded to him.

9.         The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant, contended that the complainant booked a car with the OP on 5.11.2008 and deposited Rs.50,000/- as booking amount. As per the terms & conditions of booking form, the interest was to be paid on the amount of deposit, from the date of deposit, to the date of delivery less 7 days. The amount of interest was to be adjusted in the invoice itself.  On 5.2.2009, when the complainant took delivery of the car, the OP verbally promised to pay the interest amount of Rs.1364/- for 83 days @ 12% p.a. through separate cheque. Despite a number of written requests and visits, the OP paid a sum of Rs.1144/- to the complainant,  instead of Rs.1364/-, which was less.  It was further contended that the complainant suffered a lot of harassment and mental agony.

10.     The main dispute, between the parties is regarding the 3 cheques dated 4.3.2009, 14.5.2009 and 10.8.2009 respectively, each for Rs.1144/-. As per the contention made by the learned Counsel for the appellant/OP, in fact, a cheque of Rs.1144/- was offered, not only once, but in fact thrice but the complainant refused to accept the same everytime. Whereas, the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant in rebuttal denied this fact, and alleged that no such cheques, as mentioned by the OP, were ever offered to him, and these had been fabricated by the OP, just to mislead the Forum. It was alleged that when the first cheque issued by the OP was valid for 6 months, then what was the need for cancellation of the same, and issuance of a fresh cheque.

11.       After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and contentions advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. No evidence was adduced by the OP, as to by which mode, the cheques allegedly offered to the complainant, were sent to him. Moreover, there is no evidence to establish as to why and when the OP cancelled the earlier two cheques issued on 4.3.2009 and 14.5.2009 and issued a fresh cheque dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure R-Z).  There is, no proof, to the effect, that, as to in whose presence, these cheques were tendered to the complainant, and he refused to accept the same. So, in the absence of any cogent proof, the plea of the OP that, the abovesaid cheques were offered and the complainant refused to accept the same, could not be believed. The District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the story set up by the OP, that it offered the cheques, to the complainant, was false, just concocted to dodge it. The District Forum was also right in holding that a lot of harassment and mental agony was caused to the complainant by unnecessarily driving him to litigation.

12.       In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency, in service, on the part of OP, and the complainant was also harassed for almost one year to get a meagre amount of Rs.1364/-. On top of it, the OP set up a false plea, that the aforesaid cheques were offered to the complainant but the same were denied by him.  So, in this situation, we have come to the conclusion that the learned District Forum has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- for concocting a false story by the OP. Therefore, we don’t find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Forum.

13.       In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant/OP is dismissed, being devoid of merit, and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld.

14.       The parties are left to bear their own costs.

15.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 

Pronounced.                                                                        

21^st July, 2011.