Om Prakash vs MILL STORES SYNDICATE

THE complainant has claimed refund of Rs. 500 /- which is the booking amount of the Scooter, Rs. 50,000/- as damages for mental agony, Rs. 25,000/- for obstruction in public service and a further Rs. 25,000/- for causing obstruction in the work of State Government.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant was Food Inspector in the State Government. He booked one Scooter Electrona 24 (one horse power) with M/s. Mill Stores Syndicate, Kanpur, opposite party No. 1. He was lured by an advertisement/notice published in the newspaper and had applied on 20.3.1982. He also got a receipt of advance payment which is on record as Annexure No. 3. After the scooter was booked, he sent a number of reminders but the scooter was not delivered. THE delivery of the scooter was promised in the third week of May, 1982. Opposite party No. 1 replied by letter dated 2.6.1983 that he had informed opposite party No. 2, M/s. Electro mobiles, who is the manufacturer of this scooter for cancellation of the order placed by the complainant and requested for payment of amount paid. The complainant has alleged that he has not sent any letter to opposite party No. 1 or 2 for cancellation of the order or for refund of Rs. 500/- but he has asked for the scooter. By letter dated 31.5.1986 it was informed by opposite party No. 1 that opposite party No. 2 has informed that the Company has been closed which belonged to State Government of Karnataka and further proceedings are pending with the Government. On this, complainant has sent letters and reminders to Chief Secretary, Karnataka State but the State Government has not replied to these letters. It is alleged by the complainant that it is an unfair trade practice and he is entitled for the compensation as mentioned above.

The opposite parties were served notices but except opposite party No, 1, no-one else did contest the case.

OPPOSITE party No. 1, in the written statement, had admitted placing of the order and deposit of Rs. 500/- as advance money. It is alleged that the advance money of Rs. 500/- was paid to the opposite party No. 2 M/s. Electro mobiles (India) Limited and it was not kept by opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 agreed to get the refund from opposite party No. 1 and as such opposite party No. 1 has been unnecessarily impleaded as party. It is further alleged that the claim petition is barred by limitation. Case proceeded ex-parte against opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.

OPPOSITE party No. 1 filed affidavit in support of his written statement. The complainant also filed rejoinder affidavit in support of his case taken up in the complaint. It is alleged that M/s. Electro mobiles (India) Limited, Bangalore, opposite party No. 2 through its Deputy Secretary guaranteed to refund the advance amount in case of cancellation of order vide Annexure XI of the complaint/petition. This Company belongs to Karnataka Government. This Company has gont into liquidation as disclosed by opposite party No. 2 in reply to the notice. OPPOSITE party No. 1 is also liable to refund the advance amount. On the date of hearing, learned Counsel for the complainant was present, but none was present on behalf of any of the opposite parties. Hence the case proceeded ex-parte against opposite parties. The only dispute in the present case is that the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 500 /- as advance money which he had deposited with opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 has alleged that the amount was sent to opposite party No. 2. For getting this amount refunded, the complainant had to issue several reminders and notices to opposite party No. 1 and when it came to his knowledge that the manufacturer of this scooter, opposite party No. 1 also wrote several letters to opposite party No. 2. Inspite of this fact, opposite party No. 2 have not refunded the amount to the complainant. Thus we have to see as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the refund of Rs. 500/- and the damages which he has claimed.

ACCORDING to Opposite party No. 1 he is not liable to make the payment as the amount has already been sent to opposite party No. 2 and only opposite party No. 2 is liable to refund the amount. The factual position is otherwise. It is an admitted fact that the sum of Rs. 500/- was paid by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 for which a receipt was granted. Annexure 2 is a letter issued by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant on 16.4.1982 informing the complainant that the original copy of the application duly marked therein is being returned to the complainant and their principals expect to deliver the vehicle in the third week of May, 1982. Alongwith this letter a photocopy of another application for purchase of Electrona 24 (Annexure III) is attached in which a declaration has been given by M/s. Electromobiles (India) Limited, opposite party No. 2. It is signed by the authorised signatory. In this declaration it has been mentioned that "we guarantee the refund of the amount of Rs. 500/- to the customer in case of his cancellation of the order, for valid reasons, within 30 days on his demand for refund of advance money". The receipt for Rs. 500/- booking amount is annexed as Annexure IV which is dated 20 March, 1982 in which the price of the scooter has been mentioned as Rs. 8,500/-. Thereafter a number of reminders have been filed in order to show that requests have been made to opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 for refund of the amount. One of the letters (Annexure X) is the copy of the letter which has been written by the opposite party No. 1 to the opposite party No. 2 for refund of the amount as the order has been cancelled. By letter dated 17,6.1986, Annexure XI opposite party No. 1 informed the complainant that the Company, M/s. Electromobiles at Bangalore is closed for indefinite period and the said Company belongs to Karnataka Government and that they are trying to get the amount refunded, but ultimately the amount was not refunded.

IT may be mentioned that a sum of Rs. 500/- was deposited by the complainant on the assurance, which was contained in a notice published by opposite party No. 1 copy of which is Annexure as Annexure I. In this notice it has been mentioned that scooters are being manufactured in collaboration with a Foreign Company in Sweden and their Mini trucks are already on sale. The details of the scooter were given. Naturally on the basis of this, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- with opposite party No. 1. Therefore opposite party No. 1 is also liable to refund Rs. 500/- to the complainant, Besides opposite party No. 2. As regards the damages, we find that the complainant has been deprived of this money for a considerable period of time and he should get 18% interest in the form of damages for waiting for such a long time. He has also suffered mental agony and torture for all these period for which in our opinion Rs. 5,000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The complainant has also prayed for damages of Rs. 25,000/- on account of obstruction of service to the public and Rs. 25,000/- on account of obstruction in the work of State Government. We find that the complainant is not entitled to get any amount on these scores because he has not suffered any damage but the inconvenience was caused to the general public or the State Government. The complainant is not connected in any way with the inconvenience caused to the general public or the State Government and for that he cannot claim any compensation. He can only claim compensation for the inconvenience or other damages suffered by him for which we have already granted reasonable amount as stated above.

The complaint is liable to be allowed and the opposite parties are liable to refund a sum of Rs. 500/- alongwith interest at the rate of. 18% in the form of damages. The complainant is further entitled. to get an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental torture and agony which has been allowed earlier. ORDER The complaint in partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant jointly and severally Rs. 500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum in the form of damages from the date of deposit till date of payment. The complainant is further entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation from opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. He will get a cost of Rs. 1,000/- from opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Let copies be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint partly allowed. _______________