Haryana

Sonipat

209/2014

DEEPAK KUMAR S/O RAJBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. LIBRA FORD PVT. LTD.,2. LIBRA FORD PVT. LTD.3, LIRBRA FORD PVT. LTD.,4. FORD INDIA PVT. LTD.,5.VI - Opp.Party(s)

ANKUR TYAGI

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.209 of 2014

                             Instituted on:26.08.2014

                             Date of order:

 

Deepak Kumar son of Rajbir Singh, r/o H.No.452/31, Gali no.3, New Court road, Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

 

1.M/s Libra Ford Pvt. Ltd. through its General Manager Mukesh Kumar.

2.M/s Libra Ford Pvt. Ltd. through its Branch Manager Ankit Verma.

3.M/s Libra Ford Pvt. Ltd. through its owner, all are At plot no.21, NH-1, Kundli, distt. Sonepat.

4.M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd., through its President Nigel Harris Also at its Corp. office(N) at 3^rd Floor, Building 10C, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase II, Gurgaon.

5.Vinay Piparsania Executive Director, Marketing and Sales & Service, M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd.,  both no.4 and 5 also at its Reg. office at M/s Ford India Pvt. Lt.d, SP Koil Post, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu.

                                      ...Respondents

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ankur Tyagi,  Adv. for complainant.

           Respondents no.1 to 3 ex-parte.

           Sh. Manoj Malik, Adv. for respondent no.4 and 5.

 

BEFORE-  Nagender Singh, PRESIDENT.

          Prabha Wati, MEMBER.

          D.V. Rathi-Member.

         

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that all the officials of the respondents no.1 to 4 are vicariously liable for the acts and deeds done by them as they have specifically induced the complainant that he would be supplied their brand new latest version Ford Figo which is specially launched in just one month back. The complainant was induced upon by the respondent no.2 through the respondents no.1 and 3 for and on behalf of all the respondents to purchase a brand new latest Ford Figo for a total value of Rs.5,50,000/-.  The complainant on 22.3.2014 booked a brand new car at Action Showroom Bawana Delhi and from time to time he deposited total Rs.1,50,000/- with the respondents.  But when the complainant and his relatives went to take the delivery of the car, it was noticed that the car was of model 2013 and already run upto 85 kms.  The complainant raised objection and thus, the respondents no.1 to 3 refused to supply them brand new latest car Ford Figo Model 2014 and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.4 and 5 have appeared and they filed their joint written statement, whereas the respondents no.1 to 3 were proceeded against ex-parte.

         The respondents no.4 and 5 have submitted that the complainant has never had any direct dealing with the respondents no.4 and 5.    Thus, any grievance with respect to deficiency in service can only be made against the respondent no.1.  The complainant booked his vehicle with respondent no.1 and not with respondent no.4.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.4 and 5 and has prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       Both the parties have been heard at length.  All the documents placed on record by both the parties have been perused carefully & minutely.

4.       After hearing ld. Counsel for the complainant and respondents no.4 and 5 and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we have come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 to 3, because even after getting the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited from the complainant, they failed to supply the brand new car to the complainant. As per the complainant, the car which the respondents no.1 to 3 were going to supply was of 2013 model and already run 85 KM. In our view, there is a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 to 3. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 to 3 to refund Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.one lac fifty thousands) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of its deposit till realization and further to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousands) for deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondents no.1 to 3 only.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)   (DV Rathi)          (Nagender Singh-President)

Member,DCDRF,   Member, DCDRF        DCDRF, Sonepat.

Sonepat.        Sonepat.

 

Announced: 11.08.2015