RAVI KANT GARG vs BRANCH MANAGER, CLASSIC MOTORS PVT. LTD.

BRIEFLY the facts are me complainant booked a car with M/s. Classic Motors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinaftter referred to as the Company) on 29.6.90 and handed over a Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 35,000/- to the company. At that time the price of car was Rs. 1,08,674/-. Respondent No. 1 is the Branch Manager and respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director of the company. The complainant received a letter dated 1.11.90 from respondent No. I that they should give ''No Objection Certificate'' from Income Tax Department regarding the fixed deposit prior to delivery of the vehicle. He was also requested to make the full payment, within 35 days otherwise his priority number would be changed. He handed over the said certificate on 13.12.90. He also deposited the prevailing price i.e. Rs. 1,17,390/with the company. That amount, it is pleaded, included the price of the heater.

ON 11.1.91 he approached the respondents for delivery of the car. He was informed by the respondents that the vehicle had been received and the delivery would be given after Pre-delivery Inspection. He paid an amount of Rs. 251/on account of Insurance and Temporary Registration Charges. The car was ultimately delivered to him on 14.1.91 at a price of Rs. 1,21,415/-. The grievance of the complainant is that he was required to pay Rs. 4,025/-over and above the price for which the respondent agreed to supply the car to him. It is further alleged by him that he has not been supplied the heater though he paid its price to the company. He also submits that the car which has been supplied to him is of 1990 model whereas it has been supplied to him in the year 1991. He also says that there are certain defects in the car which have not been rectified by a dealer of the Maruti as Dehradun. The complaint has been contested by the respondents They inter-alia pleaded that they charged the price of the car which was prevailing in the market at the time of the delivery and that the price of the heater was not charged. Regarding the repairs it is stated that if the car is bought to the respondents within the warranty period the defects would be removed. It is also stated that the car was received on 11.1.91 and through an oversight the Registration Deptt. in the Registration Book mentioned wrongly 1990 model. Infact it is 1991 model. The respondent is not responsible for the said mistake.

We have heard the parties. The first grievance regarding the hike in price has been explained by the representative of the company. He has submitted that the hike was due to rise in custom duties and there was a clause in the agreement that the price prevailing at the time of delivery of the vehicle would be charged. We are satisfied with the explanation.

REGARDING the heater the complainant has not been able to show that he paid for the heater. The respondents have categorically stated that the price charged at the time of delivery of the car did not included the cost of the heater. We accept this statement made on behalf of the respondents. Regarding the mention of the model in the Registration Certificate it is stated that the car was got registered in the month of January 1991 and through an oversight of the Registration Department the model of car was given therein as 1990. The car was received by the respondents in the month of January, 1991 and the question of its being of 1990 model did not arise. We are also satisfied with this explanation.

THE complainant has made certain grievances regarding defects in the car. He, however, did not bring the car to the workshop of the respondent and got them rectified at Dehradun where he is using his car. In the aforesaid situation his grievances could be either against Maruti Udyog or the dealer from whom the car was got repaired. He could not make the grievances against the company. However, the representative of the respondent has very fairly stated that if the car is brought to the company''s workshop the defects would be got removed. At the end we may mention that the complainant has filed this complaint without any genuine grievance and he has wasted the time of the Commission. Consequently we dismiss the complaint with costs. Costs Rs. 500/-. The costs should be paid by the complainant to the respondent within one month. Complaint dismissed.