ISHVARBHAI PRABHUBHAI BEJANWALA Vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the original complainant who had paid full amount for the purchase of rickshaw but the respondent did not deliver the rickshaw to him and, therefore, he had prayed for the delivery of rickshaw and damages @ Rs.100/- per month and interest @ 18% on the amount paid. The complaint having been dismissed with cost, the complainant has filed this appeal. The short facts inter-alia are as under:

(2.) The complainant who is a rickshaw driver was in need of an autorickshaw for his livelihood. The respondent No.1 (original opponent No.1) is the manufacturer of autorickshaw while respondent No.2 (original opponent No.2) is the authorised dealer of the rickshaw. The opponent No.1 by publishing an advertisement invited the proposals for booking the rickshaw. Reading the said advertisement in the newspaper, the complainant submitted his form duly filled in with the deposit of Rs.500/- to the opponents on 22.7.88. Thereafter the opponent No.1 by draw system prepared the priority list for effecting the delivery of the rickshaw. The applicant was assigned serial No.75 for the purpose of priority and delivery and he was informed accordingly by a card. The complainant thereafter received intimation letter dated 13.2.89 calling upon him to make the payment of the rickshaw and Insurance as well as registration fees as per intimation letter. He was required to pay Rs.25,686/- the value of the rickshaw, Rs.1175/- insurance and registration fees and deducting the deposit amount he was required to pay Rs.25,111/-. Thereafter the complainant went to Navsari from Surat on 20.3.89 and paid the amount by two cheques - one for Rs.25,000/- and another for Rs.1285/- which were handed over to the respondent No.2 for and on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 then asked the complainant to select the rickshaw out of many lying there. The complainant selected the rickshaw, chassis number of which was 169 and engine number 306187. After the selection was made by the complainant, the respondent No.2 dealer prepared the receipt bearing serial number 346 and complainant was advised to take the delivery of the rickshaw on March 24, 1989. The complainant went to take the delivery on 24.3.89 to the respondent No.2 dealer. However, according to the complainant the respondent No.2 neglected to deliver the same under one or another pretext as and when the complainant approached for taking the delivery of the vehicle. The complainant was unable to understand as to what was the intention of the respondent in not delivering the rickshaw which was selected, ready and lying in the godown of the respondent No.2. No reply was given. Having no other option, the complainant gave a notice dated 21.4.89 to the respondent which was served upon him on 24.4.89. Even then none of the respondents paid any attention and, therefore, the complainant had to file the complaint.

(3.) The respondent No.1 had filed a written version on March 19, 90 wherein he had admitted the receipt of Rs.500/-as deposit and assigning 75 as priority number. The intimation was also given to take delivery on payment and he was advised to approach the respondent No.2 within 14 days from the receipt of the intimation letter and was advised to pay the amount by draft. The complainant did not approach within the time given of 14 days. However, he approached the respondent No.2 and urged to effect the delivery. Instead of tendering the demand draft, he tendered two cheques -one of Rs.25,000/- and another for Rs.1385/-. The respondent No.1 had further stated that he was not certain whether the cheque should be accepted. The respondent No.1 did not agree to accept the cheque but ultimately it was accepted on humanitarian ground by the respondent No.2 though it was contrary to the normal procedure and on realisation of the cheque the delivery was to be effected. Before the cheque could be accepted, there was hike in the price of the rickshaws from 1.3.89 because of the cost of production going high. The company increased the price of the rickshaw in the month of April that too after 20.4.89. According to respondent the amounts have been realised after April 20,89 and by that time the prices of the rickshaws have been increased and, therefore, the complainant was asked to pay the difference between the price which was increased to Rs.37,000/-. The complainant did not accept the proposal and demanded that the delivery of the rickshaw should be effected at the contractual rate. That the same being not in consistent with the agreement entered into between the parties, it was not delivered. It was further stated that the company would be ready to deliver the rickshaw at the prevailing rates and the delivery was not effected on account of the conduct of the complainant. The company therefore urged to dismiss the complaint. The respondent No.2 has also filed a written version on 28.11.89 which is also in consonance with the written statement filed by the company.