MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED vs Y S Parmar University Of Horticulture And Forestry

-ORDINARILY I would have gone into the merits of all the submissions urged on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Mahajan, that in the facts and circumstances of this case the impugned order is not sustainable against his client. But looking to the meagre amount involved in it, I have not gone into the merits of the case.

FACED with this situation Mr. Mahajan submitted that even if it be assumed for the sake of argument without conceding, that there was deficiency in service on the part of his client, still the impugned order cannot be sustained and in any event amount is liable to be reduced. Facts as they emerge out of the record of the complaint file are, that respondent No. 1 placed with respondent No. 2 a sum of Rs. 2,80,241 on 17. 8. 1994 for the purchase of Mahindra Commander Jeep. Respondent No. 1 was assured by respondent No. 2 that the jeep would be supplied within 6-8 weeks. In this behalf stand of the appellant is that so far as dealing between appellant on one side and respondent No. 2 on the other, is on principal to principal basis. Further according to Mr. Mahajan, draft was issued in the name of respondent No. 2 and not in favour of the appellant by respondent No. 1-University. Mr. Mahajan also submitted that in any case interest for the period 26. 2. 2001 when the complaint was dismissed for default of appearance till its restoration i. e. upto 30. 5. 2006 should not have been allowed as there was no fault on the part of either his client or respondent No. 2. Fault was entirely of respondent No. 1. Even if respondent No. 1 is to succeed, even then it is not entitled to Rs. 22,112 as has been worked out as interest calculated at the rate of Rs. 18% per annum from 14. 10. 1994 to 26. 3. 1995 the date of delivery of the vehicle in question and then again further interest has been ordered to be paid on this amount of interest on Rs. 22,112 @ 9% per annum, besides costs of Rs. 5,000.

So far as interest payable for the period 26. 2. 2001 when the complaint was dismissed till 30. 5. 2006 when it was restored is ancerned, it should not have been allowed and District Forum below fell into error in allowing interest for this period, as such this part of the order needs to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.

NOW coming to the question as to whether the sum of Rs. 22,112 worked out towards interest @ 18% on account of belated delivery of the jeep in question, it is felt that looking to the trivial issue involved in this case interest of justice will be well served, if it is ordered that the appellant shall be liable to pay Rs. 20,000 in all. I have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case, except on interest part as noted above. No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, while partly allowing this appeal it is ordered that only the sum of Rs. 20,000 is payable by the appellant to respondent No. 1-University. Out of the total deposited amount in this appeal Rs. 20,000 with up-to-date proportionate interest accrued on it will be remitted by the office to respondent No. 1-University, and the balance amount also with up-to-date proportionate interest will be remitted to the appellant. Appeal stands finally disposed of in these terms. All interim orders passed from time-to-time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order from the Reader free of cost. Appeal partly allowed.