Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is also alleged that the o.p.no.2, the appellant herein, submitted written objection challenging maintainability of the case alleging, inter alia, that the complainant is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also stating that the booking was confirmed and the vehicle would be delivered after getting firm supply order along with full payment from the complainant subject to availability of the vehicle. It was also alleged that the complainant lodged the complaint in suppression of the material facts and records of the second quotation-cum-proforma invoice dated 13.08.2014 quoting the total price at Rs.9,92,458/- and the third quotation-cum-proforma invoice dated 12.03.2015 quoting the total price of Rs.10,55,425/-. It was also alleged that in spite of intimation regarding the price escalation of the booked vehicle, the complainant informed nothing to the o.p.no.2 showing his readiness to purchase the said vehicle at the enhanced price. It was also alleged that time and again, the o.p.no.2 through its employee informed the complainant to receive back the booking money of Rs.50,000/- when the o.p.no.2 could not make arrangement to deliver the booked vehicle to the complainant even after the expiry of five months from the date of booking, but the complainant refused to take back the booking money. It was also alleged in the written objection that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.no.2 and having no cause of action, the o.p.no.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the complainant booked the vehicle on 11.07.2014 on the basis of the price quoted in quotation-cum-proforma invoice dated 17.06.2014 which discloses On Road Price at Rs.9,82,535/-, but thereafter, the price of the booked car has been increased to Rs.9,92,458/- as per quotation-cum-proforma invoice dated 13.08.2014 and thereafter, the price of the booked car has further been increased to Rs.10,55,425/- as per quotation-cum-proforma invoice dated 12.03.2015. He also submitted that the enhancement of the price of the booked car for two times i.e. on 13.08.2014 and on 12.03.2015 have been duly communicated by the o.p.no.2 to the complainant, but the complainant did not make any positive response expressing his intention to buy the booked vehicle at the enhanced rate prevailing at the time of delivery of the booked car to him.

He also submitted that the appellant in the Ld. Forum submitted a cheque on 25.02.2015 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the refund of the booking money. He also submitted that it is the specific case of the appellant that due to the escalation of the price of the booked vehicle for the second time amounting to Rs.9,92,458/- and for the third time to Rs.10,55,425/-, the appellant sent the quotation-cum-proforma invoice dated 13.08.2014 and 12.03.2015 respectively to the complainant showing that the complainant was duly informed regarding the escalation of the price of the booked vehicle. He also submitted that if the cheque dated 25.02.2015 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- showing the intention to refund the booking money was really issued on 25.02.2015, the question of sending the quotation-cum-proforma invoice dated 12.03.2015 would not arise at all. He also submitted that this circumstance clearly indicates that the said cheque bearing dated 25.02.2015 referred to above is an antedated one. He also submitted that the appellant produced nothing in the Ld. Forum for establishing that the appellant really sent the said cheque dated 25.02.2015 to the complainant towards the refund of the booking money of Rs.50,000/- after cancelling the said booking.

Admittedly, as per quotation-cum-proforma invoice, there was no terms and conditions of agreement that with the increase of price of the booked car from time to time, the matter will be informed to the intending purchaser by sending another quotation-cum-proforma invoice containing the rate of increased price of the booked car. From the quotation-cum-proforma invoice dated 17.06.2014, we find that as per terms and conditions no.1, price and specifications are subject to change without any prior notice. As per terms and conditions no.2, price prevailing at the time of delivery of car will be applicable and terms and conditions no.3, payment to be made in full before delivery. So, as per terms and conditions nos.1 & 2, it was not at all necessary on the part of the o.p.no.2 to send the quotation dated 13.08.2014 and the quotation dated 12.03.2015 to the complainant showing the increase of the price of the booked car. In this regard, O.P.W.1 Abhijit Paul, the Managing Director of o.p.no.2 stated in his cross-examination that second and third quotations dated 13.08.2014 and 12.03.2015 respectively were sent to the complainant in writing, but in the next breath, he stated in his cross-examination that all the quotations were given to the complainant by hand, but the o.p.no.2 failed to establish by producing any document that the o.p.no.2 handed over the said two quotations to the complainant on two different dates mentioned earlier. The O.P.W.1 stated in his cross-examination that during the period from 11.07.2014 to 01.04.2015 they did not receive any model of vehicle from the Company, but the o.p.no.2 produced no stock register, purchase register and sale register before the Ld. Forum for establishing that during this intervening period, the o.p.no.2 purchased no vehicle manufactured by Ford India Private Ltd. and no vehicle was also brought from Tamil Nadu to Agartala and also no vehicle was sold by them to any customer in Tripura. The non-production of the stock register and also purchase and sale registers from the side of the o.p.no.2 have made it clear that the o.p.no.2 was not in clean hand.