Bhushan Tewari vs Tata Commercial Motors

THIS revision petition has been preferred by Shri Bhushan Tewari, the complainant. The complainant is an educated unemployed youth. He applied for the bus permit on 29.1.2009 under Self -Employment Scheme for local routes and got the same approved on 16.6.2009. The information of the approved permit was received by the complainant on 6.7.2009. In the letter of approved permit, it was mentioned that the complainant should submit all connected papers of the vehicle within two months i.e. 16.8.2009, failing which, approved permit was liable to be cancelled. Consequently, Shri Bhushan Tiwari, the complainant met the Tata Commercial Motors/opposite party No. 1. He obtained quotation for taking loan from SBI Haldwani and handed over a cheque in the sum of Rs.10,000/ - to the opposite party No. 1 as booking advance for model Tata Lp 909/40 seater Marcopolo. The opposite party assured him that the bus would be delivered in his favour before 6.8.2009 and he was also directed to deposit rest of the amount without delay. The complainant obtained loan from State Bank of India in the sum of Rs.11,17,200/ - and the amount was deposited with opposite party No. 1 on 3.8.2009. He visited the opposite party on 3.8.2009 and 5.8.2009 but his visits could not ring the bell. The bus was not delivered till 6.8.2009.

IN the meantime, the complainant''s permit got cancelled and he was deprived of the employment, which caused mental agony and mental loss as well. Ultimately, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum with the following prayers: (A) that the price of the bus amounting Rs.11,17,200 may be got refunded to the complainant.

(B) That the 12% interest on the above amount w.e.f.03.08.2009 till the date of realization may be paid to the complainant.

(C) That the expenses towards the formalities etc. for bus permit may be got refunded to the complainant.

(D) That the expenses towards the formalities in bank loan amounting Rs.25,000/ - may be got refunded to the complainant.

(E) That the deficiency in service by opposite parties caused monthly income loss of Rs.30,000/ - brought about due to continued unemployment during litigation may be got realized form the opposite parties.

(F) That the compensation of Rs.2,00,0000/ - as mental, social and physical agony may be got realized from the opposite parties.

(G) That the expenses of Rs.20,000/ - towards litigation may be got realized from the opposite parties and given to the complainant.

(H) That the other compensation that Hon''ble Forum may consider fit and justifiable be got realized from the opposite parties and given to the complainant.

THE District Forum heard the parties on merits of this case and the case was dismissed against opposite party No. 2. The order passed by the District Forum is as under : The complaint submitted under Section 12/13 of the CPA 1986 by Bhushan Tewari, against the OP No. 1 Tata Commercial Motors Bareilly Road, P.B. 19 Industrial Estate, Bareilly Road, Haldwani, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital (through manager) has been partly allowed. The OP NO. 1 is ordered to refund the amount of Rs.11,17,200/ - (Eleven Lac Seventeen thousand two hundred only) and simple interest thereon @ rate of 9% per annum to the complainant from 03.08.2009 till the date of entire actual payment. In addition, OP No. 1 will pay Rs.5000/ - as mental agony and Rs.5000/ - towards litigation expenses. The complaint is dismissed against the OP No. 2.

AGGRIEVED by that order, the complainant preferred an appeal before for enhancement of compensation before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the same. We have heard the petitioner in person and the counsel for the respondent. It is noteworthy that the respondents did not call into question the order passed by the District Forum.

LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that opposite parties have already paid the said amount which has already been released in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also cited few authorities which are reported in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh : (2004) 5 SCC 65, Godfrey Philips India Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar : (2008) 4 SCC 504, Union Bank of India vs. Seppo Rally Oy and another : (1999) 8 SCC 357 and Consumer Unity & Trust Society, Jaipur vs. Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta and another : (1995) 2 SCC 150.

IN the reply filed by the opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum, it was averred that owing to effective unavoidable situation the OP No. 1 was unable to deliver the bus within the scheduled time for which OP NO. 1 has no fault. It is further mentioned that compelled with the circumstances which were beyond the control of OP NO. 1, the bus could not be delivered to the complainant within the scheduled time. At the time when the earnest money was deposited by the complainant, the condition No. 3 clearly indicated in the booking form that 6% interest would be payable after 8 days and during the period of delivery of vehicle. Consequently, the complainant is conditionally bound and legally restricted to any other demand. The petitioner had taken the vehicle for commercial purpose. The model (bus) was being manufactured in very less number by Tata Motors Ltd./opposite party No. 2 and therefore, could not make available to OP No. 1 and even to other dealers. Due to this reason, the vehicle was not delivered to the petitioner in time. This must be borne in mind that it is a peculiar case, which deals with life of an unemployed educated person. It is a very bad practice that whenever the big industrialists attend the phones of bigwigs, their works are done in a jiffy. However, when it comes to an unemployed youth, who is to start his life with borrowed money, those are deficient in not supplying the vehicle to him immediately. It is difficult to understand why the gullible persons are led up the garden path. If we encourage such like actions the question of unemployment will never be solved. The bus should have been supplied to the unemployed youth immediately. Even if there was short supply, the making of false promises to such like youth tantamounts to deficiency and unfair trade. The opposite parties should have told the complainant point blank that the opposite parties wanted more time and they would not be able to supply the bus in such a short time. The compensation awarded by the lower court to the complainant is peanuts. The petitioner who argued the case himself argued that due to this litigation he has become half of the advocate and did nothing but to pursue this case, when we tried to make him understand that one should not run after easy money. The courts below should have realized that such a poor person had to pay 12% compound interest while paying back the money to the Bank.

ALTHOUGH , the demand raised by the petitioner is on the higher side, yet, in order to meet the ends of justice, he must get something more than the amount awarded by the lower foras. The fact that he remained unemployment for 2 -3 years should not be lost sight of. We further enhance compensation amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/ - (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand), which be paid to the petitioner/complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order otherwise it will carry interest @12% p.a. till its realization. The revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.