K HARIDASANAPPEL Vs. M O HASAN KUTHOOS MARICAR PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the com- plainant in Case No. 4 of 1989 on the file of the State Commission, Pondicherry against the Order dated July 5, 1990 passed by the State Commission.

(2.) Neither the appellant nor the respondent was present at the time when the appeal came up for hearing. After having carefully perused the records we have come to the conclusion that this appeal has to be allowed in part.

(3.) The facts of the case lie in a brief compass. An advertisement had appeared in the Malayalam newspaper "Malayala Manorama" dated January 17, 1989 wherein the respon- dent M/s M.O. Hasan Kuthoos Maricar Ltd., Pondicherry had offered early delivery of Ambassador Diesel Cars at a price of Rs. 1,24,500/- each. In pursuance of said advertise- ment the complainant, who was then an unemployed motor driving license holder who was desirous of acquiring a car for the purpose of earning his livelihood by operating it as a taxi remitted the amount of Rs. 1,24,500/- at the company's office at Mahe on January 31, 1989 and he received the agreement letter evidenced by Ex. A-2 wherein he was assured that the vehicle would be delivered to him not later than March 31, 1989. Default was, however, committed by the respondent in honoring this assurance regarding delivery. Repeated visits made by the complainant to the office of the respondent at Mahe did not yield any results. Subsequently, on April 27, 1989, the complainant received a telegram from the respondent intimating him that the delivery of the vehicle could be given only in the third week of May, 1989. However, delivery was not made even within the said period and hence the complainant again repeatedly called at the office of the respondent at Mahe and also sent a registered letter dated May 10, 1989 demanding delivery of the car within five days of the receipt of the same. Ultimately, in July, 1989 a telegram was received by the complainant from the head office of the respondent company stating that the vehicle was ready for delivery to him in the Pondicherry office of the company. But when the complainant went to Pondicherry to take delivery of the car he was informed that there had been an increase in the price of the vehicle and that he should pay Rs. 11,663/- more in order to get delivery of the vehicle and if he was not agreeable to pay the enhanced price he could take back his advance. Being felt with no other option the complainant paid the additional amount of Rs. 11,663/- also and took delivery of the car on July 17, 1989 after his having been made to sign another agreement which mentioned the enhanced price of the car.