State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Geeta Bal Bharti Varisth vs Nugas Technologies India(P) Ltd. on 7 April, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 07.04.2008 (1)Appeal No. A-1142/06 (Arising out of Order dated 20.02.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North West), CC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Case No. 19/05) Principal Appellant Geeta Bal Bharti Varisth Through Maanyamic Vidhalaya, Mr. Vipin Singhania, Rajgarh Colony, Advocate Delhi 110031. Versus Director Respondent M/s Nugas Technologies India(P) Ltd. A-21-22, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Azadpur, Delhi 110033. (2)Appeal No. A-1146/06 (Arising out of Order dated 20.02.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North West), CC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Case No. 21/05) General Secretary Appellant Hindu Siksha Samiti Nyas, Through Geeta Bal Bharti Campur, Mr. Vipin Singhania, Shankar Nagar near Advocate Rajgarh Colony, Delhi 110031. Versus Director Respondent M/s Nugas Technologies India(P) Ltd. A-21-22, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Azadpur, Delhi 110033. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. The aforesaid two appeals arise from the same order.
2. Vide impugned order dated 20.02.2006, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant who is a Principal of Geeta Bal Bharti Varisht Madhyamic Vidhalaya, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court to convert all the buses plying in Delhi to CNG, he deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- vide receiptNo.235 dated 29.03.01 as booking amount with the respondent-company which was engaged in the business of converting buses into CNG out of which Rs. 5,000/- was security amount and Rs. 20,000/- as advance money. However, on knowing the news from the newspapers and other media that CNG fitted buses are not working properly and sometimes had got fire while on roads, the appellant changed his mind and decided to purchase the new buses fitted with CNG kit from the company itself. Due to this reason the appellant did not send their buses for fitting the CNG kit and asked the respondent to refund the amount. However, on the invoice of the booking receipt it was specifically mentioned that this amount was not refundable. When the efforts of the appellant to get the refund failed inspite of having written many letters, the refund was not made. Consequently he filed the instant complaint before the District Forum.
4. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Forum was pursuaded more by the fact that the appellant did not produce any cutting of the newspaper showing the defects in the CNG nor the receipt of Rs. 5,000/- paid out as security whereas the receipt issued by the appellant clearly states that the total amount of Rs. 25,000/- was towards booking amount of retrofitting the vehicle with CNG kit in the vehicle and further persuaded by the fact that since no service of converting the CNG was issued by the respondent, therefore the question of deficiency in service did not arise.
5. The main contention of the counsel for the respondent was two-fold, firstly that the appellant had agreed that this amount was non-refundable and secondly it had already indented the requisite parts costing Rs.
3 lacs or so, and therefore, had suffered the loss. Neither the respondent produced a single receipt of having purchased any such parts for the purpose of conversion. On the contrary the appellant annexed large number of news paper reports about the failure of the CNG system.
6. Any prudent person having read such news of bursting of cylinders in the CNG buses, and buses catching fire, much less a principal of a school who is using buses for bringing the children to the school would always change the mind of not getting the bus converted and rather would purchase new buses.
7. Any contract the term of which is unconscionable is void ab initio and nor actionable. No service provider can forfeit the consideration received by it unless it has provided the service or the consumer has availed the service and therefore the reference in the booking receipt that this amount was not refundable was unconscionable.
8. The contention of the counsel for the respondent was that advance amount was earnest money which was forfeited. There is no reference as to what was the amount of earnest money. Rs. 25,000/-
was only for booking whereas the actual expenses for converting the CNG might be running into lacs.
No person would accept such a meager amount as earnest money against the expenditure incurred by him.
9. It is sad that a principal of the school who had paid Rs. 25,000/- for CNG conversion of his school bus has been made to wait for such a long time for the refund of only Rs. 25,000/- whereas on the other hand, the respondent has become unjustly rich for converting the bus into CNG and not even the examination of the bus was done. The bus was never sent to the respondent for fitting the CNG kit and the appellant had changed the mind in the mid way before the bus could be sent to the respondent and rightly so, as no such a person owning the school would risk burning of the bus or bursting of the CNG cylinder and thereby causing untoward incident and harm to the school children.
10. Foregoing reasons persuade us to allow the appeal with the direction to the respondent to refund the entire amount of Rs. 25,000/- with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation.
11. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
12. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
13. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
14. Announced on 7th day of April, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc