B.C. Kandpal, President
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.08.2011 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 32 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant â opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 24,330/- to the respondent â complainant; Rs. 2,000/- towards mental and financial agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses within a period of one month, failing which the above amount was directed to carry interest @6% p.a. from the date of the order till payment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is engaged in selling of vehicles. The complainant got a chassis bearing model No. SE/1613/42 booked through Kotdwar branch of the appellant. The cost of the chassis amounting to Rs. 9,03,000/- was deposited through bank draft on 22.05.2009, for which receipt was issued to the complainant and the complainant was told that the chassis would be delivered in 2-3 days. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the body maker at Rishikesh for construction of body of the truck. When the complainant went to the Kotdwar branch of the appellant, he was told that the chassis is not available and he was asked to come again after 2-3 days, on account of which, the complainant had to pay extra amount of Rs. 24,330/- to the financier bank. The complainant sent a legal notice to the appellant, on receipt of which, the booking amount of Rs. 9,03,000/- was refunded to the complainant on 19.06.2009. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Chamoli.
3. The appellant filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that at the time of booking of the chassis, the complainant was informed that the chassis will be delivered as per availability and that on account of non-receipt of the chassis from the manufacturer, the deposited amount of Rs. 9,03,000/- was refunded to the complainant on 19.06.2009 and that there has not been any deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 28.08.2011 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant had booked a chassis of the truck through Kotdwar branch of the appellant and deposited a sum of Rs. 9,03,000/- on 22.05.2009 and on account of non-availability of the chassis, the said amount was refunded by the appellant to the complainant on 19.06.2009.
7. The complainant has alleged that on account of non-providing the chassis of the truck by the appellant, he had to pay an extra amount of Rs. 24,330/- to the financier bank, from which he had taken loan for purchase of the vehicle and according to him, he had suffered the said loss on account of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
8. The appellant has stated that it is the authorised dealer of Tata Motors Limited and it effects the delivery of chassis as per availability.
9. It is important to mention here that the complainant in his cross-examination before the District Forum has stated that âHindiâ This statement of the complainant is enough to hold that there has not been any inaction on the part of the appellant for non-supply of the chassis to the complainant. The appellant has specifically stated in its written statement filed before the District Forum that it effects the delivery of chassis as per availability and this fact also stands corroborated from the statement made by the complainant in his cross-examination as quoted above.
10. So far as the payment of extra amount of Rs. 24,330/- by the complainant to the financier bank is concerned, the appellant has got no concern with the same. The complainant borrowed the amount from the bank at his own sweet will and agreed to the terms and conditions of the loan. The appellant was not at all a party to the contract entered into between the complainant and the financier bank and if the bank charged any extra amount from the complainant as per the agreed terms and conditions of the loan, the appellant can not be held responsible for the same, more so when the appellant had acted bonafidely and refunded the amount to the complainant without any undue delay.
11. The District Forum did not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and erred in allowing the consumer complaint by the order impugned, which can not legally be sustained. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order impugned of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
12. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 28.08.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 32 of 2009 is dismissed. No order as to costs.