HARYANA CREDITS AND SAVING LTD Vs. PREM KUMAR TANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is virtually concluded against the appellant by the earlier order of this Commission in First Appeal No.7 of 1990 (M/s Haryana Credit and Leasing Ltd. , Hisar V/s. Krishan Munjal) decided on 10th September, 1990.

(2.) In view of the above, it is unnecessary to delve deeply into the facts and merits of the case. Suffice it to mention that the appellant M/s Haryana Credits and Saving Ltd. , Hisar, claim to be a prestigious concern, dealing in the financing of cars, motorcycles, scooters etc. at Hisar. On the 6th December, 1989 they advertised in the local press for arranging the booking of the new Maruti 1000 car with M/s Maruti Udyod Limited against a deposit of Rs.6,150/- only for each booking and undertaking to loan the requisite balance of Rs.19,000/- to the prospective customers. The offer was to be open for seven days and for 1000 bookings only. The respondent-Prem Kumar Taneja along with many others was attracted by the offer, and in response thereto he duly deposited Rs.6,150/- with the appellant company on the 12th December 1989. The complainant-respondent specific allegation was that he received a communication from -the appellant-Company dated 9th January, 1990 (though it purported to be the third reminder), informing him that because of some problems of the Multi-National Banks, including the City Bank, the Reserve Bank of India had directed to stop the booking of Maruti Cars immediately, and, consequently, his Maruti Car could not be booked under the Company's Finance Scheme. Considerable delay in refunding the deposited amount was also made, an additional grievance in the complaint. On these facts the complainant-respondent alleged misconduct and breach of faith against the appellant-Company, whereby he had been deprived of the booking of Maruti-1000 Car, and put to a loss of nearly 50,000 to 60,000 rupees.

(3.) In response to the notice issued by the District Forum, the appellant-Company admitted the issue of the advertisement in the press, and also the receipt of Rs.6,150/- from the complainant-respondent on the relevant date. The other allegations in the complaint were sought to be controverted and the blame was attempt to be shifted on to the shoulders of the complainant-respondent for allegedly not having completed the necessary documents by the very evening of the 12th December, 1989, when he had earlier deposited the amount. The complaint was alleged to be frivolous and vexatious, which merited dismissal.