Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 75
Instituted on : 15.02.2018
Decided on :29.08.2024.
Baljeet son of Sh. Ramchander resident of 420/11, ShoraKothi, Rohtak,Haryana-124001.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Amar Enterprises, through its owner/manager/partner, 480/10 Bharat Colony, Opp. AnshBajaj Dealership near Sagar Villa Hotel, Sheilla Bye Pass, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
- UM Lohila Two Wheelers Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager, Director, CEO. A-79, DDA Shed, Okhla Phase-2, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020.
- Droom Technology Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager, Director, CEO, 90/31B, Frist Floor Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017.
……….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person with Sh. Vipin Goyal, Advocate for the
complainant.
Sh.SumitSiwach Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 & 3 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he had purchased a bike Renegade Classic, HSN/SAC Code 87113020 for Rs.195754/- vide invoice no.VA04441700033 dated 27.10.2017. At the time of purchase of said vehicle, opposite party gave an offer of following items: A pair of Gloves, a bag, a pair of shoes, a branded helmet of worth Rs.5000/- and money back offer of Rs.5000/-. Complainant had purchased the above said vehicle as per the offer given by the opposite party and get cash back of Rs.5000/- by NEFT transfer byDroom Technology Pvt. Ltd., to the bank account of complainant on 27.12.2017. Complainant approached the opposite party No.1 regarding the other offer of purchase but the opposite parties told that the goods of the offer were not in stock and will be handed over to the complainant after supply of the same by the company. After many requests, opposite parties told that a local made helmet of Rs.200/- can be provided if the complainant accepts the same, otherwise no goods of offer will be provided to the complainant and also misbehaved with the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to provide all offers of purchase mentioned above and to pay an amount of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its written statement has submitted that it is correct that the complainant had purchased the bike but this was online booking by the complainant with Droom. It is incorrect and denied that the opposite party told the complainant that the alleged items would be given to him on purchase of bike. When this is online booking, the opposite party has nothing to do with the alleged matter which is between the complainant and Droom. The complainant has himself admitted that he has received a cashback of Rs.5000/- from the Droom Technology Pvt. Ltd. Hence the dispute is between the complainant and Droom and the respondent no.1 has been dragged into litigation unnecessarily. It is also submitted that there is a tie-up/settlement between Droom and UM Lonia Two wheeler Pvt. Ltd. i.e. respondent no.2. It is further submitted that when the complainant raised dispute, there was correspondence between the opposite party and Droom and on the direction of Droom, a Helmet of the cost of Rs.1000/- was offered to the complainant but the complainant refused to take the same. It is denied that a local helmet of Rs.200/- was offered to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Notice was sent to opposite party No.2 through registered post but it did not receive back either served or unserved and after expiry of statutory period of one month, opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.07.2018 of this Commission.
4. Opposite party No.3 in preliminary objections of its reply has submitted that opposite party No.3 had promised the complainant a cashback amount of Rs.4000/- alongwith one helmet and nothing else as has been alleged by the complainant. The opposite party no.3 had made transfer of cash back to the account of complainant and the said fact has also been admitted in the complaint. As regards, the assurance of providing helmet is concerned, the opposite party No.3 had not specified any amount for the helmet but had promised the complainant the standard specification of helmet available on its website which costs around Rs.300/- and the complainant does not have any written communication in support of the allegations made in the present complaint. Opposite party No.3 requested the complainant vide its email dated 29.12.2017 to collect the helmet from the location of opposite party No.1 & 2 but the complainant did not acknowledge the same and opposite party No.3 could not deliver the helmet to the complainant. The complainant had concealed the material fact that he had raised the issue of cash back of Rs.4000/- which was successfully resolved by the opposite party No.3 to complete satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter no further grievances were raised by the complainant. On merits it is submitted that complainant was not promised any other goods , spares or free gifts by the opposite party No.3 except for a cash back of Rs.4000/- and a helmet and there is no deficiency of service or promise on the part of opposite party No.3. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and closed his evidence on 14.12. 2018. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/3 and closed his evidence on 06.11.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per written statement and affidavit filed bythe opposite party no.1 the motorcycle has been purchased by the complainant online and no assurance or any offer was given by the opposite party No.1. There is a tie-up/settlement between Droom and UM Lonia Two wheeler Pvt.Ltd. i.e. opposite party No.2 & 3. Hence the dispute is between the complainant and Droom and there is no liability of opposite party No.1. It has been further submitted that the complaint of the complainant was forwarded through email to opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.3 asked the opposite party No.1 to offer the helmet to the complainant of the cost of Rs.1000/- but the complainant refused to accept the same. Hence it is clear that the offer was given by the opposite party No.3. On the other hand, as per the written statement filed by the respondent no.3 they have offered a cash back and helmet but they had not specified any amount for the helmet but had promised the complainant the standard specification of helmet available on its website which costs around Rs.300/-.
6. We have also perused the email Ex.P5 written by the opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.3 regarding complaint by their customer and they had to face the same due to the inappropriate way of dealing of opposite party No.3. Opposite party no.1 at the direction of opposite party No.3 also offered helmet worth Rs.1000/- to the complainant but the same was refused by the complainant on the ground that the helmet offered was only of Rs.300/-. As per the complainant opposite parties have given the offer of helmet worth Rs.5000/- but to prove the same, no document has been placed on record by the complainant. But on the other hand, as per the photograph Ex.P4, there was offer of giving accessories upto Rs.7000/- on purchase of new motorcycle. As per the complainant he has received the cashback of Rs.5000/- from the opposite party. As per emails placed on record by the complainant, it is proved that opposite party no.3 failed to fulfil the promises offered by them at the time of selling the motorcycle in question. If any offer was given by the opposite party No.3to their customers, it is their prime duty to fulfil the same. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.3. However, opposite party no.1 & 2 has no liability as the offer was given by the opposite party No.3.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to pay the amount of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) on account of cost of helmet alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 15.02.2018 till its realisation and also to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.08.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
.........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
