KANAKPURI GANGAPURI GOSWAMI vs MEHSANA AGRO MACHINERY PVT. LTD

- THE complainant booked one Premier 137-D taxi with the opponent and deposited the amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 28.11.1991 and then deposited the amount of Rs. 1,69,137/- on 10.8.92 but the delivery of the car was not given by the opponent till 28.12.92 when the complaint was filed and, therefore, the complainant filed the complaint for directing the opponent to deliver the Premier 137-D taxi or to return the amount of Rs. 1,84,137/- with 18% interest on that amount and the cost.

THE opponent by written statement (Exh. 5) while admitting the receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,84,137/-stated that the delivery of the Premier 137-D was given on 6.1.93 and denied the liability to pay the interest or cost or compensation. THE other contentions are that the complainant is not the customer and that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Shri J.C. Goswami, the learned advocate for the complainant admitted that the delivery of the Premier 137-D taxi is given on 6.1.93 but asserted for the compensation for the loss of interest as the opponent failed to deliver the car within short time after making full payment for the price of the car. It is asserted by Shri J.C. Goswami that the opponent had agreed to pay 9% interest on the deposit irrespective of the date of delivery and has also agreed that the delivery of the car will be given as early as possible and within six weeks from the date of submitting the papers.

The opponent vide letter dated November 14, 1991 (Exh.1.3) invited the customers for booking the Premier Padmini and in that letter stated that they will get 9% interest on the deposit and that deposit is refundable on cancellation of the order booking. It is also stated in the letter that the booking is transferrable at the time of maturity for paying service charges. According to the complainant the amount of Rs. 15,000/-was deposited on 28.11.91 and in normal circumstances the complainant is entitled to the interest @9% on the amount of the deposit. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,69,137/- was deposited on 10.8.92. The complainant is also entitled to interest @ 9% on that amount. By pro-forma invoice dated July 15, 1992 (Exh.15) the opponent informed that the car will be delivered as early as possible. The complainant, therefore, deposited the amount of Rs. 1,69,137/- on August 10,1992. In the letter dated May 26, 1992 (Exh.12) the opponent informed the complainant that the complainant will be offered the car from the next available lot provided the other formalities are complied with within six weeks from the date of the letter. It is also stated that the interest accrued on the booking amount, if applicable, will be settled at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The formalities i.e. documents were required to be submitted within six weeks from the date of the letter. It is, therefore, clear that by that letter delivery of the vehicle was assured within six weeks from the date of the letter i.e. on or about 15th July, 1992. According to the complainant the documents were furnished and all required formalities were completed by July, 22, 1992. Considering the period of six weeks from the compliance of the formalities, the delivery should have been given at least by September 10, 1992. It is admitted that the complainant entered into agreement with another person on December 31, 1992 for transferring the car which is permissible under the contract and ultimately the car is delivered on 6.1.1993 to the person with whom the complainant entered into agreement for delivery. By not delivering the car in time as promised, inspite of taking the deposit to the extent of the full value of the car in advance, the deficiency in service was committed by the opponent. Deficiency means even the manner of the performance which was undertaken to be performed by the opponent in pursuance of the contract. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to the compensation for the deficiency in service by the opponent. The quantum of the compensation can be ascertained from the very contract of interest. The opponent agreed to pay the interest @ 9% on the deposits and, therefore, the quantum of the compensation or the loss for the deficiency in service should be considered on the basis of the interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs. 1,69,137/- from 10.9.92 to 31.12.92. For the period of three months and twenty days the compensation for the loss of interest is Rs. 5,063/-. The complainant, therefore, should be awarded the amount of Rs. 5,063/-. The question of delivering the car now does not arise as it is already delivered by the other side to the person with whom the complainant had agreed for transferring it.

THE contention that the complainant is not the "Consumer" cannot be accepted as no evidence is lead to establish that the taxi car was to be purchased for any other purpose than self-employment. As provided in the explanation issued by Ordinance in Consumer Protection Ordinance dated 21.6.93 "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. We, therefore, pass the following order: ORDER The opponent shall pay Rs. 5,063/- with running interest @ 9% from the date of the order till realisation. The amount ordered is to be paid within one month from the date of the order. The parties shall bear their own cost of this complaint. This 22nd day of June 1993. Complaint allowed.