Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presidingf Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Kolhapur in Consumer Complaint No.528/2008. While allowing the consumer complaint vide order dated 06.03.2009 the District Forum directed the original Opponent to forthwith return the vehicle of the Complainant to him bearing No.MH-09-AB-7976 and to pay a sum of `4,798/- to the Complainant. Against that award this appeal has been filed by the Opponent.
(2) Case of the Respondent in the Forum below was that he had purchased two wheeler vehicle – Bajaj Discover from the Appellant for sum of `46,400/-. He had paid the amount of `10,000/- on 10.11.2007 and balance amount carried interest @21% per annum that was the point of contention between the parties in the District Forum. But the fact is that when the Complainant had not paid entire amount at one stroke the Appellant/Opponent was entitled to charge interest. The Complainant was charged interest @21% per annum, whereas contention of the Respondent is that no interest was payable. However, any interest is payable as per stipulation made in that behalf in the agreement executed by the parties. So interest varies between the parties as per agreement. The fact that Appellant had asked for interest @ 21% per annum is appearing to be just and proper, for, ultimately the Respondent has paid total price of the scooter amounting to `53,440/-. So he cannot be heard to say that there was no agreement of payment of interest between himself and the Appellant. Question is after taking delivery of the vehicle he had run the vehicle for three months and given it back for servicing and in the course of servicing it was noticed by the Appellant that Respondent had met with an accident and therefore, the vehicle required repairs to the extent of `9,495/-. Simply because there was mistake in the date of purchase of the scooter the District Forum disallowed this amount and District Forum erroneously directed the Appellant to deliver vehicle forthwith and should additionally pay `4,798/- to the Respondent/Complainant. This has been taken exception of by filing this appeal.
(3) We are finding that Respondent/Complainant had already paid price of the vehicle together with interest as agreed between the parties. Only dispute appears to be in respect of demurrage charges levied by the Appellant. He is claiming `10,000/- as demurrage charges. We are of the view that asking for demurrage charges is appearing to be exorbitant. The Appellant cannot claim demurrage charges because Appellant had nowhere given notice to the Respondent asking him to pay `100/- per day as demurrage charges if he fails to take delivery of the vehicle within a specified period from the date of notice. No such notice was given. The Appellant is not entitled to charge demurrage charges of `100/- per day. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that Appellant is entitled to get `6,347/- excluding demurrage charges as per annexure he has given at page nos.7 and 8 of appeal memo. We therefore direct that on payment of this amount the vehicle shall be forthwith delivered to the Respondent seeking no further charges and while giving delivery to the possession of the Respondent, the Appellant shall give delivery of the scooter in roadworthy condition. In the circumstances, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) In place of operative order passed by the District Forum, we direct that the Appellant shall give delivery of the vehicle to the Respondent on Respondent making payment of `6,347/-. The delivery of the vehicle shall be made after making the vehicle roadworthy in all respect.
(iii) Order shall be complied with within 30 days from today.
(iv) Amount deposited by the Appellant be refunded to the Appellant.
(v) Inform the parties accordingly.
