Monday, Apr 11, 2005
Monday, Apr 11, 2005 |
| New Delhi | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | New Delhi
By Mandira Nayar
NEW DELHI, APRIL 10 . It was an extra Rs. 7,000 that took Ravinder Ravi 15 years in court to get back. Having ordered a Maruti car in 1986, he had dutifully made all the payments, only to find that the company delayed the delivery of the car so that Maruti Udyog and Competent Motors could take advantage of a price hike. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi held Maruti Udyog guilty of deficiency in service and directed them to refund the extra amount paid by Mr. Ravi together with Rs. 2,000 as costs of litigation. While Mr. Ravi had first approached a district consumer redressal forum, his case was dismissed in 1993. Determined to get justice, Mr. Ravi went in appeal to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi. In his case before the consumer court, Mr. Ravi argued that he had paid an initial booking amount of Rs. 78,351 in 1985. He was assured that he would get the delivery of the car in February 1989. However, he only got the car two months later. He alleged that the delay was intentional and was forced to pay Rs. 7,000 extra as the price of the car was increased in the meantime. After going through the evidence, a bench of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi, stated that Competent Motors and Maruti Udyog had failed to come up with a plausible explanation for the two months delay in the delivery, after having informed Mr. Ravi by a letter that they were going to deliver the car on a particular date. The bench further stated that the clause that appears in the performa invoice that price prevailing at the time of the bill would be charged can't be taken advantage of in this case, as Mr. Ravi made the booking in 1985-6 whereas the payment of the full price was made in February 16, 1989, and the delivery was made after April 8, 1989. Such a delay clearly falls within the ambit of deficiency defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and also amounts to "unfair trade practice'', the bench stated. Therefore holding Maruti Udyog and Competent Motors guilty on both counts, the bench directed them to refund the extra amount as well as pay Rs. 2,000 as costs of litigation.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
