Amit Kumar complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite party praying that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency/delay in services for not delivering the bullet motorcycle within prescribed period and the opposite party may also be burdened with Rs.1,00,000/- on account of embarrassment in the eyes of his friends as well as his relatives, harassment and humiliation, mental and physical agony suffered from the hands of opposite party. Complainant has further claimed Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses. Complainant has also prayed that any other relief may kindly be granted which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit in his favour.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he hales from respectables family and working as computer faculty in Punjab Land Revenue Department as such he is having considerable respect in the eyes of his friends, society and general public. It was pleaded that opposite party is the authorized dealer of Royal Enfield Bullet Motorcycle and running the firm under the name and style ‘Ajit Motor Authorized Dealer of Royal Enfield’. It was further pleaded that complainant desired to purchase Bullet Motorcycle from the opposite party and on 03.11.2016, he approached the opposite party for the purchase of said vehicle and on that date he booked one Bullet Motorcycle Royal Enfield Standard, 350 CC, Colour Black and made payment of the advance of Rs.5,000/- as per the instructions of the opposite party vide booking No.3547 at Serial No.1428 dated 03.11.2016 and opposite party told to the complainant that the delivery of the said vehicle will be made to him between 1 to 7 January, 2017 and as such complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. On the assurance of the opposite party complainant agreed to receive the delivery of the said Motorcycle on given period by the opposite party but complainant was surprised when about 1½ had been passed but the opposite party did not make the delivery of the said vehicle booked by the complainant on 03.11.2016. It was also pleaded that from the date of given period of the delivery of the motorcycle uptill now, complainant approached the opposite party many times and asked for the delay regarding the delivery of the said vehicle but opposite party putting off the matter with one pretext or the other by saying that they will deliver the bullet motorcycle within a short period. It was next pleaded that complainant was to attend the marriage of his fast friend namely Sandeep Kumar son of Raj Pal on dated 12 February, 2017 and he had to gift out said motorcycle to Sandeep Kumar as he had promised him to get bullet motorcycle and he was having expectation of delivery of said motorcycle before the marriage of his friend but due to illegal act and conduct of the opposite party, all the hopes of the complainant dashed to ground and he felt ashamed/embarrassed and has become symbol of mockery in the eyes of his friends, relatives and society. It was pleaded that due to deficiency in service and illegal act and conduct of the opposite party, complainant suffered lot of harassment and humiliation and as such opposite party is liable to be burdened with compensation and damages, hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objection that present complaint is not maintainable for want of necessary party i.e. Regional office and Head office of Royal Enfield. On merits, it was stated that opposite party contacted the complainant on 04.01.2017 to come and take the delivery of the motorcycle but the complainant requested that he will come on 25/26 January after approval of his loan from the Bank and on 28.01.2017, complainant came to the opposite party along with credit approval memo to take the delivery of his motorcycle. It was further stated that opposite party requested the complainant to deposit the down payment and take the receipt of the same from opposite party and to show to his Bank so that Bank could deposit the remaining amount into Bank account of the opposite party but the complainant did not deposit the same till 14.02.2017 and on 15.02.2017 and told the opposite party that he would not purchase the motorcycle and demanded his booking amount of Rs.5,000/- from the opposite party but the opposite party refused to give the same as it clearly mentioned in the receipt that booking amount will not be returned after the expiry of 10 days from the date of booking and at that time motorcycle was available with the opposite party for delivery to the complainant. It was also pleaded that opposite party is ready to deliver the motorcycle to the complainant, if reasonable time is given to them. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint, in the interest of justice.
4. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A and copy of booking receipt Ex.C1 and closed his evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Singh Prop. Ex.OP-1 and copy of credit approval memo Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.
6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some of the documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the instant dispute did prompt at the alleged failure of the OP Vendor to deliver on time (Affidavit Ex.Cw1/A) Bullet Motor Cycle (Royal Enfield) to the complainant booked by him on 03.11.2016 vide Receipt # 3547 for Rs.5,000/- (Ex.C1) with its delivery assured between 1st to 7th January’ 2017. However, the complainant has not produced any cogent evidence in support of his allegation that the OP vendor failed to deliver the booked M/Cycle during the promised period and in its absence the aspersion turns out to be merely a bald statement. The complainant could have conveniently produced copy of the payment warrant (in whatsoever mode) favoring the OP vendor.
7. On the other hand the opposite party vendor has alleged that the booked M/Cycle was ready for delivery on 4th January’ 2017 but the complainant himself had deferred the same as he could not arrange Bank Loan/ funds for its purchase. The OP vendor has placed Ex.OP2 (an Approval Memo) dated 28.01.2017 for the amount of Rs. 90,000/- favoring Sh. Amit Kumar who however could not deposit the margin money i.e., balance invoice cost of the booked M/Cycle. Somehow, the OP vendor has not produced any other evidence to support its assertive claim(s). The OP vendors could have very well produced its stock-statement of fresh stock of M/cycles available on various dates to prove complainant wrong but somehow it did choose otherwise for reasons best known to them alone.
8. Thus, we observe that the complainant has failed to prove/ place on record that the OP vendor did fail to deliver the booked Motor Cycle whereas somehow the OP vendor has also failed to successfully prove its contested defense of not being guilty. However, we appreciate that the learned counsel for the OP Vendor, during the course of arguments, did offer to refund the deposited booking amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, as a gesture of good-will.
9. In the light of the all above, we find that the instant complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the titled OP vendor to refund the booked amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant upon his request. The parties shall themselves bear the costs, here.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
JAN. 22, 2018. Member
*YP*
