S.A. Kader, President - This is a complaint . under section 17 read with section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2: The first opposite party Mis. Maruti Udyog Ltd.. is manufacturer of Maruti cars and -

354

Consumer Protec

oppos,itc parties 2 and 3 are its authorised dealers.

, ",'

The complainant booked an order for the supply of one 1 000 CC Maruti car and made on in itial deposit orRs. 25,000/- in December 1989. The allotment was made by drawing of lots. In January 1991 the complainant was informed by the second opposite party that her allotment number had matured and wanted her to pay the balance of Rs. 3,12,860.90. Its representative Mr. Chandrasekharan called upon the complainant and informed her that the car will be delivered within two weeks from the date of payment. The come plainant arranged with Mis. Sundaram Finance, Ltd., for a loan, paid Rs. 12,860.90 to Mis. Sundaram Finance Ltd., who advanced a loan of Rs.

3,00,000/- and paid to the second opposite party, a sum of Rs. 3,12,860.90 by cheque dated 31.1.1991. There was no further communication from the opposite parties excepting vague assurance about delivery. Meanwhile Mis. Sundaram Finance Ltd., charged interest at 24% p.a. on the sum ofRs. 3,00,0001- advanced by itand the complainant had to pay to the tune of Rs. 21,525/towards interest. As there was considerable delay in the delivery of the vehicle and as there was no indication of delivery in the near future and as the complainant was suffering huge loss by payment of interest, she was forced to cancel the booking and demand refund of the amount. The third opposite party sent a cheque for Rs. 3,12,860.90 to Mis. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Mis. Sundaram Finance Ltd., adjusted the sum of Rs. 34,385.90 paid by the complainant(12860.90 + 21 ,525) and refunded to the complainant Rs. 16,237.90. The complainant thereupon issued notice to the third opposite party to pay Rs. 21 ,OOO/-' towards loses suffered by her and to which the third opposite party sent a cheque for Rs. 7,672.10 only. The conduct of the opposite parties in not delivering the vehicle even after payment of the full amount, amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has, therefore, claimed interest at 24% on the initial deposit of Rs.

25,000/- which was returned in July 1991, to pay to the complainant the difference between Rs.

18,1481- paid to Mis. Sundaram Finance Ltd., less Rs. 7,672.1 0 paid by the third opposite party to the complainant with interest at 24% p.a., further

!ction Reporter

11-1992(1)

interest at 24% p.a. on Rs. 16,237.90 being the amount paid by the complainant in the deposit of Rs. 3,12,1860.90, and further compensation in the sum of Rs. 75,000/-.

3. The first opposite party in its separate counter contended that the complainant is not a consumer and not entitlrd to maintain this complaint. It admitted that it made an advertisement for the supply of 1000 CC Maruti Cars but denied that it undertook delivery within 2 weeks from the date of payment of the full amount. It further denied the knowledge of the other averments which according to it pertains to opposite parties 2 and 3.

4. A joint counter has been filed by the opposite parties 2 and 3 to the following effect:

The maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act was denied and disputed, as there is no completed transaction of sale and the complainant is not a consumer. It was admitted that the second opposite party received cheque dated 31.1.1991 on 4.2.1990, but denied that any of its representative made an assurance that the car would be delivered within two weeks from the date of payment of the full amount.

On 25.4.1991, the complainant sent a letter cancelling the booking thereupon the second opposite party sent a cheque for Rs. 3,12,860.90 to Mis. Sundaram Finance Ltd. It is also a~mitted that the Lawyer's notice was received demanding Rs. 21,000/-. After discussion with the complainant's husband, the opposite parties sent a chequ