AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THESE are four Revision Petitions Nos. 26 to 29 against the common order passed by the State Commission, Gujarat on 9th of October, 1993 in Appeals Nos. 37, 38, 39. Revision Petition Nos. 26 & 28 are Cross Petitions against Appeal No. 38. The Revision Petitioner in Revision Petition Nos. 27 to 29, before us was the Opposite Party before District Forum and Appellant before the State Commission. The Revision Petitioner in Petition No. 26 was the complainant before the District Forum and Respondent in appeal.
SO far as Appeal No. 39/93 (Original Complaint No. 423/92 before the District Forum) is concerned the State Commission had set aside the Order of the District Forum on the ground that there was no evidence that the Complainant had paid Rs. 8,466/-for handling and storage charges over and above Rs. 1,86,134/- to the Revision Petitioner. It also held that it was open to the complainant to recover the amount by filing a civil suit. As regards other appeals, these were patially allowed by the State Commission as under: Appeal No. 37193 (O.P. No. 295/92 before the District Forum): The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the Dealer and thus upheld the Order of the District Forum for refund of Rs. 12,394/-by the Revision Petitioner to the Respondent-Complainant. This includes Rs. 8,466/- as handling and storage charges and Rs. 5,944/- for increase in the price of the car. The State Commission held that this amount had been collected in excess and upheld the Order of the District Forum for its refund with 18% interest from 1992.
APPEAL No. 38193 (O.P. No. 288192 before the District Forum): This was also allowed partially and the State Commission directed a sum of Rs. 8,466/- be refunded to the Respondent-Complainant on account of storage and handling charges with interest at 18% from 10.10.92 onwards. As no cross objections (rather appeal) were filed by the Revision Petitioner here against the order of the District Forum which did not allow interest on the deposit of the Rs. 15,000/-, the State Commission allowed no interest on deposit.
WE find that the State Commission has gone into matters in detail and having upheld the Orders of the District Forum so far as they relate to the price charged on the basis of the price prevailing on the date of delivery which was higher than the price indicated at the time of booking of the vehicles in the Appeals Nos. 38 and 39 are concerned, only in the Appeal No. 37 a sum of Rs.5,944/-representingincreaseinthe price of the vehicle has not been allowed. This is not permissible as the Dealer was clearly entitiled to charge the price prevailing at the time of delivery. Compensation for delay in delivery resulting in loss of business as the vehicles were to be run as taxies, interest on the amounts deposited with the Dealer for the period of delay in delivery have not been allowed. After detailed examination it appears that the State Commission found that there was no justification for recovery of handling and storage charges by the Dealer when the vehicles were to be delivered ex-showroom. On going through the Revision Petitions Nos. 27, 28 and 29 we find that the Revision Petitioner has failed to furnish any justification for recovering storage and handling charges from the Respondent-Complainants. He has incorrectly stated that the price included in the invoice was ex-factory price necessitating levy of handling and storage charges. From the photo copy of the invoice at page 34 of the paper book it is clear beyond doubt that the price was not ex-factory price but the ex-showroom price. That is why the insurance and octroi alone were chargeable extra at actuals. In short there was no provision for levy of handling and storage charges. It appears that such charges were levied and recovered as delivery was made conditional upon their payment. The Respondent-Complainants could not afford the delay in delivery as this was causing business loss to them and were anxious to take the delivery of the vehicles without delay. Withholding delivery till such charges were paid, was obviously an unfair trade practice.
IN the light of the above the Revision Petition No. 27 (Appeal No. 37) is allowed partially to the extent of Rs. 5,944/-recovered with reference tot he ruling price of the vehicle at the time of delivery. The order of the State Commission is modified to that extent. In the result the Revision Petitioner in R.P. No. 27 is liable to refund Rs. 8,466/- recovered as storage and handling charges. The Revision Petitions Nos. 26,28 and 29 are dismissed and the order of the State Commission is upheld. There is no order as to costs. Revision Petition No. 27 allowed partially and Revision Petition Nos. 26, 28 & 29 dismissed.