SIKAND AND COMPANY AND ORS Vs. MONTESSORIE CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2009-11-6
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on November 17,2009

Sikand And Company And Ors Appellant
VERSUS
Montessorie Cambridge School Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum, Shimla, Camp at Solan, in Consumer Complaint No. 95/2004, decided on 1.3.2007 whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed and appellants were held liable to refund Rs. 1,84,000 to the respondent -school along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint. In addition to this, they were also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the complainant for indulging in deficiency in service/unfair trade practice, besides litigation cost quantified at Rs. 3,000.
(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the record are, that respondent in the present case is a school which is running under the name and style of Montessorie Cambridge School, Raja Ka Bagh, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., a Unit of Himalaya Education and Research Society. Respondent was in a need of commercial vehicle for the purpose of welfare of the students and the representatives of appellant No. 2 approached it for fulfilling its demand and promised that they will get the best services available, since they are dealers of Tata Motors, the manufacturer, i.e. appellant No. 3.
(3.) HENCE on the promises and assurances given by appellant No. 2, the respondent agreed to purchase Tata City Rides Buses from appellants 1 and 2, being manufactured by appellant No. 3 and for this purpose it paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 in cash on 17.3.2004 to appellant No. 2 and receipt was also issued by the representative of appellant No. 2 for the said sum. Requirement of the respondent for the said buses was also made clear to the appellants that the vehicles should be in yellow and blue colour as they are being used for the purpose of school and said colours have been made mandatory by the Transport Authority for the purpose of plying school buses in the State of HP. In view of the order placed by the respondent, appellants supplied the bus bearing chassis No. 357151 EWZ 050866 Engine No. 497 -SP 41 DWZ -873508 to the complainant on 22.3.2004 and the 2nd vehicle bearing chassis No. 357151 BVZ050283, Engine No. 497 SP41BYZ861380 on 25.3.2004, and the vehicle were delivered in school premises as per commitment made by appellant Nos. l and 2. At the time of Registration of vehicle bearing Chassis No. 357151, it has come to the notice of the respondent that this vehicle supplied was of 2003 model, whereas it should have been of 2004 model. Since the payment for booking of the buses were made in cash on 17.3.2004, and even the colour of the vehicle was not yellow and blue as per requirement of the School Authority, the buses supplied to the respondent were of base white colour. Hence the complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed for deficiency of service/unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.