Delhi

East Delhi

CC/495/2014

KULDEEP - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVIA AUTO SERVICE - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO.495/14

Sh. KULDEEP BHARDWAJ

S/O Sh. LAKHI RAM,

R/O I-79, GALI NO.10,

BRAHAMURI, DELHI 110053

                                                                                                                    ….Complainant

Vs

 

1. M/S AVIA AUTO SERVICES PVT. LTD.

RENAULT EAST DELHI.

THROUGHT ITS DIRECTOR/MANAGER/AUTHORIZED PERSON

AT 77, PATPARGANJ INDURSTIRAL AREA,

1.  

 

2. RENAULT INDIA PVT LTD (RIPL)

REGIONAL OFFICE-NORTH

SUITE NO-11, VATIKA BUSINESS CENTRE,

2.  

SUSHANT LOK I, PHASE 1,

BLOCK A, MG ROAD,

GURGAON 122002

                                                                                                                        ….Opponent

Date of Institution: 29.05.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 18.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 30.01.2017

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by the complainant Sh. Kuldeep Bhardwaj against OP-1 (M/S Aviva Auto Services Pvt. Ltd), and OP-2 (Renault India Private Ltd) with the allegation of deficiency in services.

1. On 23/01/2014, the complainant had booked PULSE white coloured car vide receipt No. GEEAL3004570 by paying Rs.5000/- through cheque to OP-1. The complainant did not get the white colour car within 2 days as promised by the executive of OP due to non availability. It is stated that the refund of booking amount was refused by OP-1 and was pressurized to buy silver coloured car. It is further stated that the complainant was ill treated and abused by the MD and executive of the OP-1. Despite complaint via e-mail dated 13/02/2014, with the customer care his grievance remained unaddressed. It is also stated that the complainant has purchased the Renault Pulse Top Model on 31/12/2013 from another showroom. Legal notice dated 11/04/2014 demanding refund of booking amount was served on OP which was neither replied nor complied with. Complainant has annexed Receipt dated 23/01/2014, e-mails dated 26/02/2014. Legal notice dated 11/04/2014 is annexed with the complaint. Hence the complainant has prayed for Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony, refund of booking amount of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation and 18% interest as penal interest on the above amount.
2.  OPs were served with the notice of the complaint where reply was filed by both OP-1 and OP2.
3.  In their reply OP-1 took the plea that the complainant was bound by terms and conditions of the contract as per which the cancellation charges were Rs.5000/-. It was also submitted that OP-1 had the white colour car available when the complainant approached the OP-1 to take delivery. It was submitted that the complainant had purchased car from another dealer at a higher discount, thus the OP had right to forfeit Rs.5,000/- as cancellation charges. The allegations in the complaint were denied as traversed thus praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP-2 in their reply stated that they were not the necessary party as it was not the case of manufacturing defect or failure of manufacturer’s warranty and the dispute was between the dealer and the complainant.
5. Rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 was filed by the complainant where he reiterated the contents of the complaint and denied those of the reply and has annexed vehicle registration certificate with the rejoinder.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant and OPs. The complainant examined himself and stated on oath the contents of the complaint and placed reliance on Ex CW1/1 voter I card, Ex. CW1/2 Original receipt dated 23/01/2014, copy of the E mails dated 13/02/2014 and 14/02/2014 are Ex. CW1/3 and Ex. CW1/4 respectively, Legal notice dated 11/04/2014 is Ex. CW1/5, Postal receipt is Ex. CW1/6 and copy of Registration certificate of the Renault Pulse RXZ car being No. DL8 CAF-1357 is Ex. CW1/7.
7. OP-1 examined Sh. B. Rajendran, Authorised representative of OP-1, who stated that the OP-2 was not the necessary party and reiterated the contents of their reply. Reliance was placed on Ex. OP1/A- dealership agreement, duplicate copy of the deposit receipt is Ex. OP1/B, Ex. OP1/C is the list of Renault Pulse Vehicles in possession of OP in January 2014 and the evidence of sale of the car reserved for the complainant on 31/01/2014 is Ex OP1/D.
8. Galametz Axel, Chief Financial Officer was examined on behalf of OP-2 who relied on letter of authority as Ex OP2/A, Dealership agreement as Ex OP2/B.
9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the OP and have perused the material placed on record. Ex CW1/2, the Original receipt bears the stamp “ booking cancellation Rs. 5,000/- “Thus, it is amply clear that the Rs.5,000/- shall be forfeited out of the booking amount, in the instant case the booking amount was Rs.5,000/- thus OP1 was right in non refund of the said amount. Furthermore, the entire controversy revolves around the non availability of white colour car. Ex CW1/7 the vehicle registration certificate in the name of the complainant bears the colour as “Silver”. Thus, the complainant cannot make aspersions against OP by alleging the non availability of the white colour. Hence we find no merits in the complaint and dismiss the same without order as to cost.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

File be consigned to R/R.

 

(Dr P.N. TIWARI)                                                                      (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

   MEMBER                                                                                                   MEMBER

 

                                                            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

PRESIDENT