RAJ NARANG vs MODERN AUTOMOBILE

THE partly successful complainant appeals against the order of the District Forum, Hisar seeking enhancement of the relief and compensation to the tune of Rs.80,498.80P.

AT the very outset, it may be noticed that the respondents M/s. Modern Automobiles and Maruti Udyog Limited have not chosen to challenge the order under appeal and the findings of facts have, therefore, achieved finality against them. The narrow issue is one with regard to the grant of compensation and consequently the facts may be noticed with utmost brevity relevant to the said question. Dr.Raj Narang, apparently in a representative capacity as the President of the Punjabi Sabha, Fatehabad had brought the complaint on the allegation that the said Society had booked an Ambulance with the respondents at Hisar on the 9th of November, 1992 and paid a sum of Rs. 1,29,657/-. It was the case that the respondents had agreed to deliver the same within two-three weeks, but deliberately procrastinated in making the delivery with the result that the prices of the vehicle were enhanced with effect from the 1st of January, 1993. It was in terms the stand that M/s. Modern Automobiles by their communication dated the 29th of December, 1992 had expressly agreed to supply the vehicle at the current rate, even if it was invoiced after the 1st of January, 1993, when the revised prices were likely to come in force. Nevertheless, the delivery to the appellant was stalled and delayed till the 26th of February, 1993 and not only that an unauthorised demand was made for the payment of the enhanced price, which due to coercion was deposited under protest by the appellant. To highlight the deliberate delay in delivery and a patent case of discrimination and pick and choose policy, it was pointed out that another Society of Barwala had booked a vehicle for a similar Ambulance on the 15th of January, 1993, which was released to the said Society within 12 days on the 27th of January, 1993. By comparison, the appellant who had made the booking long prior to that on the 9th of November, 1992 was given delivery a month later than that on the 26th of February, 1993.

On notice being issued, the respondents put in their detailed written statement, to which reference now becomes unnecessary in view of the fact that they have not challenged the impugned order. The District Forum even though finding patent merit in the case of the appellants and holding entirely in their favour on facts, nevertheless confined the relief merely to the refund of the revised price unauthorisedly charged by the respondents despite their own assurance. It d id not even advert to the express and detailed claim of the appellants to the tune of Rs. 85,192/-vide application dated 15th of March, 1993 before the District Forum and declined all further compensation.

MR. Guglani, the learned Counsel for the appellant has highlighted the fact that once the appellant''s case stood accepted and it was manifest on the record that the respondents had not only with-held delivery of the vehicle, needed for the charitable purposes for more than two months, but also extorted the revised price from the appellants, the District Forum was bound to grant compensation in view of the patent deficiency in services established. It was the case that a mere refund of what was the appellant''s due in this context was not adequate recompense, particularly in view of the fact that he had been driven to prosecute the case before the District Forum and also in now seeking further redress. We must notice with satisfaction that Mr. Parmod Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 very fairly conceded that there was patent default and delay in the delivery of the vehicle even in comparison with those who had registered their orders much later. However, he had sought to shift the blame and liability in to the shoulders of their dealer M/s Modern Automobiles Ltd. On the other hand Maj.B.R. Sharma on behalf of the latter took the forthright and uncontroverted plea that the Ambulance was a special type of vehicle, which was sent by their Principals M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited by name for the registered customers and the price thereof was also deducted and invoiced by the manufacturers and charged accordingly. Consequently, there was not the least default on behalf of the said respondent.

THERE is patent merit in the stand taken on behalf of the appellant. This is doubly so in view of the fair concession of Mr. Jain that there had infact been default and delay in delivery, which stood wholly unexplained on the record. Once that is so, jt follows that the appellant would been titled to monetary compensation for the established deficiency in service and the narrow issues remaining are the quantum of the compensation and the liability of the individual respondents, therefor. In the aforesaid context, the admitted communication of M/s. Modern Automobiles Limited addressed to the appellant and dated the 29th of December, 1992 assumes primal significance. The relevant part thereof deserves notice in exten so: "We are pleased to advise that we have received approval from Maruti Udyog Ltd. to supply Omni Ambulance to you against your pending booking made on November 9, 1992 at the current rate even if the vehicle is invoiced and delivered after January 1, 1993 when revised prices are likely to come into force. This is for your information."

The afore-quoted unchallenged documents makes it manifest that it was with the authorisation and approval of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. that an undertaking to supply the Sepcialised vehicle at the original price was made. It could not be disputed before us that the said vehicle was despatched by the manufacturers against the order of the appellants and inevitably the dealer could offer delivery only when the same was despatched and received at his end. It is common ground tha t this was sen t only on and around the 26th of February, 1993. Not only that the invoice, therefor was again at the revised price despite the earlier assurance and undertaking given. This would make manifest that the sole liability for further compensation would lie on the shoulders of M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited only.

COMING now to the quantum of compensation, it suffices to mention that in Paragraph No. 3 of the application made before the District Forum by the appellants, the detail of the compensation under Heads A to F was particularised to the total of Rs. 85,192/-. Despite that the District Forum neither chose to refer the same nor granted any compensation at all, significantly the respondents do not seem to have adequately controverted the somewhat tall claim made by the appellant. We are of the view that this amount errs on the higher side and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- should amply meet the ends of justice, in the context of the fact that the vehicle was needed urgently for charitable purposes.

FOR the foregoing reasons, this appeal is partly allowed and apart from the relief granted by the District FORum, further compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- is directed to be paid by respondent No.2 M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited. The amounts shall be tendered within one month from today, failing which compliance would be enforced by the District FORum itself. There will however, be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. ______________