M. O. HASAN KUTHOOS MARICAR P. LTD. VS JOSEPH K. THOMAS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President;
Thiru R.N. Manickam. I.P.S. (Retd.), Member;
Dr. TMT. Ramani Mathuranayagam, Member.
M.O. HASAN KUTHOOS MARICAR P. LTD.—Appellant
versus
MR. JOSEPH K. THOMAS—Respondent
A.P. No. 3 of 1991—Decided on 5.3.1991

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. T.K. Seshadri.
For the Respondent: Miss. Seeta Badrinath.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 1l(2)(c) - Territorial Jurisdiction of District Forum - Booking at Pondicherry - Price of goods paid at Madras - Goods delivered at Madras - Parts of cause of action arriving in Madras - Madras District Forum has thus territorial jurisdiction. (Para 5)
       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(r) - Deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice - Late delivery of car than promised - Whether a deficiency in service or any Unfair Trade Practice? (Both)
       Held: This is certainly a service for hire and when there is delay in delivery, there is deficiency in service. This may also constitute an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36A(i)(b) of the M.R.T.P. Act. The complaint is therefore maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. - (Para 6)
       (iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14(1)(d) - Car delivered late than promised - Interest on delay - Full price having paid in advance - Whether complainant is entitled to claim interest as the late delivery of car? (Yes) - Rate of interest granted @ 18 % p.a. - Prevailing Bank rate 14% - Interest modified @ 14% p.a. (Paras 7-13)
       Result: Appeal allowed in part.
       IMPORTANT POINT
       Where entire price of goods was paid in advance and there was late delivery complainant is entitled to interest on delay.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President— The Appeal arises out of the Judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras in O.P. No. 10/90 on its file. The opposite party before the District Forum is the appellant before us.

2. The Complainant-respondent placed an order with the appellant company for a Contessa Classic Car and paid Rs. 2,15,000/- by a pay order drawn on the Union Bank, Chamiers Road, Madras on 3.8.89 on the oral assurance that the vehicle would be delivered within 2 weeks therefore. But the delivery was made only on 10.10.89. He therefore alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and claims interest at 18% per annum on the above sum for a period of six weeks.

3. The appellant opposite party while admitting the receipt of Rs. 2,15,000/- by pay order, has denied that any assurance of delivery within 2 weeks was given. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. The jurisdiction of the District Forum, Madras and the claim of the respondent as a consumer, the purchase of the vehicle being for a commercial purpose were also disputed.

4. The District Forum negatived the contentions of the appellant and directed it to pay a sum of Rs. 4,465/- being the interest at 18% on the sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- for six weeks and costs of Rs. 200/-. Hence this appeal.

5. The first contention advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. T.K. Seshadri is that the booking and delivery were made at Pondicherry and the District Forum at Madras had no territorial jurisdiction. The receipt for the pay order shows that the pay order has been received at Madras by the Madras Office of the appellant. Under Section 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part, arises has jurisdiction. As payment of Rs. 2,15,000/- at Madras is part of the cause of action, the District Forum, Madras had jurisdiction and it has rightly entertained this claim. Again the actual delivery of the car has been made only at Madras as is evident from the fact that a sum of Rs. 300/- has been claimed as transport charges in the final settlement of account found at page 71 of the I typed set of the appellant. It is not denied that this relates to the transport of the vehicle from Pondicherry to Madras. This again is part of the cause of action. This contention has, therefore, to fail.

6. It is then contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the allegations of the complainant do not constitute any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice and the case does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant is a dealer in Hindustan Contessa Cars manufactured by M/s Hindustan Motors. The appellant books orders for these cars, receives advances or the full price or major portion thereof, places orders with the manufacturer, gets the vehicles and delivers them to the purchasers after collecting the balance, if any, after making extra fittings, if asked for. The Commission for this service is collected from the consumer direct and in the instant case a sum of Rs. 6,000/- has been collected from the respondent as dealer’s margin. This is certainly a service for hire and when there is delay in delivery, there is deficiency in service. This may also constitute an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36A(1)(b) of the M.R.T.P. Act. The complaint is therefore maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

7. Now to the merits on which elaborate arguments have been advanced and additional documents filed on the consent of both sides. According to the respondent when he booked orders on 3.8.89 and handed over a pay order for Rs. 2,15,000/- he was orally assured that the vehicle would be delivered in two weeks and this averment is flatly denied by the appellant. An affidavit to that effect has been filed by the proprietor of the complainant concern. It is pointed out tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday