BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.209-13

Date of Institution:13-03-2013

Date of Decision:04-03-2015

1. Rajbir Singh.
2. Amanbeer Singh, both sons of Harbans Singh, residents of Near Malia Petrol Pump, Jandiala Road, Bye Pass, Tarn Taran.

Complainants

Versus

1. Baba Autos, Jandiala Road, Amritsar, authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki, through its Manager.
2. Maruti Suzuki Udyog India Limited, through its M.D.Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana.  

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainants: Sh.G.S.Sandhu, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainants under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that complainant No.1 went to Opposite Party No.1 to get the Swift VDI car paid Rs.10000/- to Opposite Party No.1 vide receipt No. 1575 dated 21.7.2011 as booking charges of the Swift VDI Car.  Complainants allege that Opposite Party No.1 promised the complainant No.1 that the car will be delivered to the complainants within 4 months time.  After 4 months, the complainants went to Opposite Party No.1 and asked about the delivery of the car booked by them, but Opposite Party No.1 told that the car will be delivered within 2 months time. Again the complainants visited the Opposite Party No.1 and asked about the delivery of the car, but again the Opposite Party No.1 told them to wait for some more time to get the delivery and the complainants had  to wait for the car. After a period of about one year from the booking of the car, the Opposite Party No.1 called the complainants and told them to arrange the payment as the car will be delivered to them in 3 days. The complainant No.2 took a loan from The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Tarn Taran of about Rs.604086/- for paying to Opposite Party No.1 and he got issued  draft of such amount from the bank having number 306809 dated 19.7.2012 payable to Opposite Party No.1 and went to Opposite Party No.1 on 21.7.2012. Opposite Party No.1 received the draft and issued a receipt dated 21.7.2012 for the same and told the complainants that the car will be delivered next day. The complainants went to Opposite Party No.1 the following day and demanded the delivery of the car, but the Opposite Party No.1 again told the complainants that it could not deliver the car as the supply of the car has not been received by it and the same will be delivered in a month’s time. The complainants again agreed on the words of Opposite Party No.1 as there was no other way out, but to do the same. The complainants again went to the Opposite Party No.1 and again asked for the car and the same was the answer of the Opposite Party No.1 and this was repeated by it for two times. The complainants again went to Opposite Party No.1 on 10.10.2012 i.e. three months after the payment of the draft and Opposite Party No.1 flatly told to the complainants that it is unable to deliver the car and returned the amount of the draft i.e. Rs.604086/- to the complainants. The complainants were very much astonished to hear this from Opposite Party No.1 and requested it to deliver the car as the complainants were very much in need of it and had also waited for it. They also told to the Opposite Party No.1 that non delivery of the car will result his insult in the society as the complainants had told too many persons that they had booked Swift VDI car. But the Opposite Party No.1 flatly refused to deliver it and shunted the complainants out of its premises. The complainants asked the Opposite Party No.1 about the amount of Rs.10000/- which they had paid to it for booking the car, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not pay it and flatly refused to pay it in future also.   The complainant No.2 had to pay an interest of about Rs. 17375/- to the The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Tarn Taran for the period of about 3 moths @ 12.50% per annum on the loan availed by him from the bank as per the certificate issued by the bank in this behalf.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.28000/- i.e the loss suffered by the complainant No.2 due to payment of interest and Rs. 10000/- booking amount. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainants have concealed the true facts that they were unable to complete the formalities and were not interested in buying the vehicle as alleged in the complaint and themselves backtracked from buying the vehicle and has now filed the false and frivolous complaint before this Forum with malafide intention. The Opposite Party No.1 is always willing to deliver the vehicle, but the complainants were not ready to take the vehicle for the best reasons known to them.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, so Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.3.2014 of this Forum. However, written version on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 was received through post on 17.5.2013. In the written statement of Opposite Party No.2, it was submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable against Opposite Party No.2 within the provisions of the Act as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 sells the vehicle to its authorized dealers under the Dealership Agreement. The relationship between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 are  governed by the provisions of Dealership agreement and is based on Principal to Principal. The dealers including Opposite Party No.1 have no authority to represent itself as an agent of Opposite Party No.2 or bind Opposite Party No.2 as enumerated in Clause 5 of the Dealership Agreement. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainants tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainants.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amar Iqbal Singh Cheema, Manager Ex.OP1/1 and document Ex.OP1/2 and  closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainants in order to get the Swift VDI car, deposited Rs.10000/- vide receipt No. 1575 dated 21.7.2011 Ex.C2 as booking charges with Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 promised the complainants that the car would be delivered to the complainants within 4 months. The complainants allege that after 4 months, when the complainants approached Opposite Party No.1 for the delivery of the car, the Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that the car will be delivered after 2 months time. Again the complainants visited the Opposite Party No.1 for the delivery of the car, but he was again told to wait for some more time. After about one year from   the booking of the car, the Opposite Party No.1 called the complainants and told them to arrange the payment as the car would be delivered to them in 3 days. Resultantly, the complainant No.2 took a loan from The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Tarn Taran of Rs.604086/-  and he got issued  draft of that amount from the bank having number 306809 dated 19.7.2012 payable to Opposite Party No.1 and approached  Opposite Party No.1 on 21.7.2012. Opposite Party No.1 received the draft and issued a receipt No. 3215 dated 21.7.2012 Ex.C3 and told the complainants that the car would be delivered next day. On the following day, the complainants went to Opposite Party No.1 and demanded the  delivery of the car, then the Opposite Party No.1 told the complainants that the car would not be delivered as the  supply of the car has not been received and the same will be delivered to the complainants within a month’s time. The complainants again went to the Opposite Party No.1 after a period of one month for the delivery of the car, but Opposite Party No.1 did not make the delivery of the car to the complainants. The complainants again went to Opposite Party No.1 on 10.10.2012 i.e. after 3 months of the payment of the draft, then Opposite Party No.1 told the complainants that they are unable to deliver the car and returned the amount of the draft Rs.604086/- to the complainants. However, the Opposite Party No.1 did not return the amount of Rs.10000/- deposited by the complainants as booking charges. The complainants further submitted that the complainants had to pay interest of about Rs. 17375/- to The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Tarn Taran for the period of 3 months @ 12.5% per annum on the loan availed by complainant No.2 from that bank and the bank authorities have issued certificate in this regard Ex.C5. Ld.counsel for the complainants submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that Opposite Party No.1 is always willing to deliver the vehicle, but the complainants were not ready to take the vehicle for the reasons best known to them. Opposite Party No.1 further alleged that the complainants themselves do not want to take the delivery of the vehicle and  they have taken back the amount which they have deposited with Opposite Party No.1. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
9. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.2 is that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 as the Opposite Party No.2 sells the vehicle to its authorized dealers under the Dealership Agreement. The complainant did not pay any amount towards booking price of the vehicle in question to Opposite Party No.2. The relationship between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 are  governed by the provisions of Dealership agreement and is based on Principal to Principal. The dealers including Opposite Party No.1 have no authority to represent itself as an agent of Opposite Party No.2 or bind Opposite Party No.2 as enumerated in Clause 5 of the Dealership Agreement. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 towards the complainants.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainants in order to  purchase the Swift VDI car, deposited Rs.10000/- with Opposite Party No.1 vide receipt No. 1575 dated 21.7.2011 Ex.C2 as booking charges, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not deliver the car to the complainants. Ultimately,  after about one year, Opposite Party No.1 called the complainants and asked to arrange the balance payment of the car and the car will be delivered to the complainants within 3 days. Resultantly, the complainant No.2 took loan of Rs.604086/-  from The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Tarn Taran for making payment  of the balance price of the car to Opposite Party No.1 and got issued  draft of such amount bearing number 306809 dated 19.7.2012 Ex.C4, payable to Opposite Party No.1 and deposited with  Opposite Party No.1 who issued receipt regarding the said draft of Rs. 604086/- i.e. receipt No. 3251 dated 21.7.2012 Ex.C3, but inspite of receiving the said amount, the Opposite Party No.1 did not deliver the car in question to the complainants and ultimately, on 10.10.2012, the Opposite Party No.1 returned the amount of the draft  Rs. 604086/- to the complainants and flatly refused to deliver the car in question to the complainants and the complainants had to pay interest amounting to Rs. 17375/- to The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Tarn Taran on the aforesaid loan amount and in this regard, certificate of the aforesaid bank dated 6.11.2012 is Ex.C5.  No doubt, the Opposite Party No.1 in their written version has stated that they are ready to deliver the car to the complainants, but it is the complainants who had taken back the amount of Rs. 604086/-, this plea of the Opposite Party No.1 is not tenable because the complainants have deposited the booking amount of Rs. 10000/- with Opposite Party No.1 on 21.7.2011 vide receipt Ex.C2 and then on the asking  of Opposite Party No.1 deposited the balance amount of Rs. 604086/- by taking loan from The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Tarn Taran. Had the intention of the complainants was not to take the delivery of the car, why they had taken the loan and they had to pay Rs. 17375/- as interest to The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Tarn Taran on the aforesaid loan amount.  Not only this, the Opposite Party No.1 has not returned the amount of Rs. 10000/- which the complainants have deposited with Opposite Party No.1 as booking charges vide receipt Ex.C2 dated 21.7.2011. All this fully proves that the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to deliver  the vehicle to the complainants, rather the  Opposite Party No.1 has indulged in Unfair Trade Practice  and intentionally did not make the delivery of the vehicle to the complainants for the reasons best known them and now when the complainants have filed the present complaint, they are stating that they are ready to give the delivery of the car to the complainants. So, certainly, Opposite Party No.1 is in deficiency of service towards the complainants.
11. Resultantly, we hold that the complainants are entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 17375/- which they had paid as interest on the loan amount taken by complainant No.2 for making the payment of the balance price of the car to Opposite Party No.1 from The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Tarn Taran. Opposite Party No.1 is also liable to refund Rs.10000/- which they had taken from the complainants as booking charges vide receipt Ex.C2. Not only this, Opposite Party No.1 has indulged in Unfair Trade Practice by not making the delivery of the vehicle to the complainants for such a long period and that too without informing Opposite Party No.2.
12. Consequently, we allow the complaint with costs and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 27,375/- (Rs.17,375/- as interest amount and Rs.10,000/- as booking charges) to the complainants. The Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainants. Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainants as litigation expenses.  The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 04-03-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)           

                                                                                    President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                               Member