SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

A.VENKATARAMI REDDY, J.ANANDA LAKSHMI, K.RANGA RAO
MARUTI UDYOG LTD. – Appellant
Versus
M. RAGHU RAM – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. M.R. Harsha, Advocate.
For Respondent: Notice served. No. Appearance.

ORDER

Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—The case of the complainant, that is, the respondent in this appeal, is that he paid a security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of Maruthi Omni Van in the taxi quota. On payment of consideration, the van was delivered to him. He submitted the necessary documents showing that the vehicle was registered as a taxi, within two weeks from the date of deposit of security amount i.e. R.C. Book of the vehicle etc. The opposite parties have accepted to send the security deposit to the complainant, but they failed to do so. He, therefore, filed a complaint for a direction to the opposite parties i.e., the Manufacturer of Maruthi Udyog Limited and the dealer, Mahalaxmi Motors, for refund of the security deposit amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from 1.6.91 until the realisation and award damages of Rs. 11,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/-.

2. The opposite parties No. 3 filed a counter denying the receipt of Rs. 10,000/- by way of security deposit. It is their case that if the excise refund is to be claimed, according to the Sales Policy Bulletin, the complainant has to forward to the dealer the Registration Certificate in ori





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top