Judgment:
Dr. P.K. Vasudeva, Member:
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., 11th Floor, Jeevan Parkash, 25-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001 through its Managing Director under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the Complaint Case No. 329 of 1996. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as District Forum-II) directed the appellant to pay interest @ 12% on the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the period of 1.5.1990 to 5.6.1992 and then from 15.1.1995 to 12.5.1995 and compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.
2. The main point of the appellant is that he never received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondent No. 1/complainant Sunish Kumar Aggarwal s/o Sh. Chander Parkash c/o M/s. Usha Industries Satnampura, Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala. The appeal was received in the office on 27th September, 2000. The notices were sent to the respondent No. 1/complainant Sunish Kumar Aggarwal, respondent/complainant No. 2 M/s. Pasco Automobiles, Pasco House, Industrial Area, Chandigarh - 160002 and respondent/complainant No. 3 - State Bank of India, Industrial Area Branch, Chandigarh, and the record of the District Forum No. II, was received. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.B. Vohra, Advocate, Mr. Sunish Kumar Aggarwal - respondent No. 1 in person, Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Vinod Mahendru, Advocate for the respondent No. 3, and now we proceed to examine the rival contention of the parties.
3. Briefly, the respondent No. 1/complainant, Sunish Kumar Aggarwal is a handicapped person. On 18.4.1990 he deposited Rs. 10,000/- and took the Maruti (A.T. Car) specifically designed for such persons. The booking was done through respondent No. 2 - M/s. Pasco Automobiles, the dealer of the appellant. M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited is the manufacturer of the car. The payment was made through a bank draft issued by respondent No. 3 - State Bank of India through its Branch Manager. However, the respondent No. 1/complainant - Sunish Kumar Aggarwal did not receive any response from the respondents. It was only on 5th June, 1992 that the appellant wrote a letter saying that the documents sent by respondent No. 2 - M/s. Pasco Automobiles were not being located and the respondent No. 1/complainant should make inquiry from the Bank to find out whether the amount of the draft has been encashed and obtain certificate. The respondent No. 1/complainant approached the respondent No. 3 - State Bank of India through a letter dated 5.10.1992 but failed to get any response. When he approached the General Manager of respondent No. 3-Bank the response was received vide letter dated 4.9.1993 asking the respondent/complainant to approach the appellant to facilitate the issue of duplicate draft. The issue of the duplicate draft was passed on 21.12.1994 and it was prepared on 9.1.1995 and received by the respondent No. 1/complainant after a period of two years and three months. It was then forwarded to appellant but again there was no response from them. The respondent No. 1/complainant sent a legal notice on 6.4.1995 which was replied by the appellant through a letter dated 12.5.1995 saying that the manufacturing of Auto Transmission Car (AT Car) has been stopped few years back and could not be supplied to the respondent No. 1/complainant and the draft of Rs. 10,000/- was returned to him.
4. The main point of contention of the respondent No. 1/complainant in the District Forum-II, was that the appellant took almost two years to reply to inform him about the non-availability of the A.T. Car, thereby obviating the need to send the duplicate demand draft in January, 1995. The respondent No. 1/complainant, further in his complaint in the District Forum-II, alleged that all three O.Ps. are deficient in service and he be awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for the mental and physical harassment and a direction be issued to the O.Ps. to deliver the car immediately. The appellant and the respondents filed written statement of the complaint case separately. The respondent had contended that in response to the request made by the appellant for issue a duplicate draft (No Objection Certificate) was required from the payee. The appellant did not approach respondent No. 3 for two years and it was in December, 1994 that the respondent No. 1/complainant produced a copy of NOC from the appellant. It has further been contended that the matter was taken up expeditiously with New Delhi Branch to secure confirmation regarding the non-payment of the draft on receipt of the advice. The duplicate draft was issued on 9.1.1995 and as such there was undue delay on the part of the respondent No. 3.
5. The respondent No. 2 - M/s. Pasco Automobiles Ltd., the dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited contended that the demand draft was deposited by the respondent No. 1/complainant was lost in transit and was not received in the office of the appellant. The respondent No. 1/complainant was asked to obtain a duplicate demand draft accordingly. This has further been contended that respondent No. 1/complainant was at fault but he did not take any action till 5th October, 1992 and the duplicate draft was prepared only on 9th January, 1995 and sent to Maruti Udyog Limited on 6th April, 1995.
6. The appellant had raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint in the District Forum-II and contended that he did not receive application for booking Maruti 800 A.T. Car. The manufacturing of this car was stopped on 28.10.1993. Hence the car could not be delivered to the respondent No. 1/complainant as averred in his complaint. Moreover the demand draft was received by the appellant only on 12.5.1995, hence there is no deficiency on the part of the appellant. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.B. Vohra, Advocate, Mr. Sunish Kumar Aggarwal-respondent No. 1 in person, Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Vinod Mahendru, Advocate for the respondent No. 3, and perusing the record and affidavits, we find that the respondent No. 1/complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- on 18th June, 1990 for booking Maruti 800 (A.T. Car). This amount was sent to the appellant by the respondent No. 2 on 27.4.1990 vide their letter No. PA/MUL/427/90. There was no response from the appellant and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 wrote number of letters dated 2.2.1991, 9.4.1991 and 12.7.1991 asking the appellant to expedite the matter and issue the allotment card or duplicate thereof for delivery to the customer who was eager to get the car on balance payment. However, the appellant remained silent and did not even tell either the respondent/complainant or the dealer-respondent No. 2 that he had not received the booking payment or the draft, in spite of the fact that respondent No. 1/complainant sent a legal notice on 13.12.1995 through his lawyer Mr. Hans Raj Sharma of Jalandhar City. This activated the appellant and a letter dated 5.6.1992 informing for the first time that the document had not been received by manufacturer of the car. This is how the respondent No. 1/complainant got in touch with the respondent No. 3 for issue of the duplicate demand draft.
7. The District Forum-II, has rightly not held respondent Nos. 2 and 3 guilty of deficient in service because respondent No. 2, the dealer of the car forwarded the documents to the appellant in time. The deficiency lies with the appellant and not with respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the considered opinion that the order of the District Forum-II is fully justified on merit of the case and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The copies of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.