Punjab

Sangrur

CC/440/2017

Rohit Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bench Mark Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Aggarwal

01 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    440

                                                Instituted on:      04.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       01.02.2018

 

Rohit Bansal son of Sh. Budh Ram Bansal, resident of H.No.236, Ward No.7-A, Pathshalla Mohalla, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Bench Mark Motors, Near Suzuki Agency, Jind Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     Renault India Pvt. Ltd. H.O. 4^th Floor, ASV Ramana Towers, 37 & 38, Venkatnarayan Road, T.Nagar, Chennai through its M.D.

3.     Renault Sales and Marketing Office, II, 3^rd Floor, Sector-32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Director.

4.     Padam Motors, Bibiwala Road, (NH-64) Bharat Nagar, Bathinda through its MD.

5.     Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. Near Suzuki Agency, Jind Road, Sangrur through its Manager. (OP NO.5 GIVEN UP BY THE COMPLAINANT VIDE HIS STATEMENT DATED 13.10.2017).

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.

For OPs 2 &o 3         :       Shri Yogeshwar Bhardwaj, Adv.

For OP No.1 and 4     :       Exparte.

 

 

 

Qourum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member              

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Rohit Bansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting booked one Kwid RXT car on 21.3.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.21,000/- vide receipt number 28-S dated 21.3.2016.  The grievance of the complainant is that despite assurance that the car will be delivered shortly, but the same was not given despite best efforts of the complainant till the filing of the present complaint. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund/return to the complainant the amount of Rs.21,000/-  along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of booking till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OPs number 1 and 4 did not appear despite service, as such, they were proceeded exparte.  The complainant made a statement on 13.10.2017, whereby he given up  the opposite party number 5.

3.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops number 2 and 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, malicious, vexatious and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs number 2 and 3, that the Ops number 2 and 3 are nor the necessary and proper party to the present dispute and further it is submitted that there is no role or control of the OPs number 2 and 3 in further sale of the vehicles by such dealers to any prospective buyers and that there is no doctrine of privity under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.  On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.  However, it is admitted that the OPs tried to settle the matter by refunding the amount of Rs.21,000/- to the complainant, but he denied to do so. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 2 and  3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 to Ex.OP2&3/2 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got booked one car with the OP number 5 at Sangrur, which is a sister concern of OP number 4 by paying an amount of Rs.21,000/- on 21.3.2016, as is evident from the copy of booking receipt on record Ex.C-2.  In the present case it is admitted between the parties that the car in question was not delivered to the complainant despite the fact he got booked the same on 21.3.2016 through OP number 5. Though the stand of Ops number 2 and 3 in the written reply is that they sells the vehicles to the authorised dealers and further they sell to the prospective buyers, but at the same time, it is also mentioned in the written reply in the para number 3 “that the contents of paragraph no.04 of the complaint are denied for want of knowledge. Further, the opposite parties tried to settle the matter by refunding Rs.21,000/- to the complainant which was denied by the complainant himself.”.  There is no documentary evidence on record to show produced by Ops number 2 and 3 that they ever offered the complainant regarding refund of the amount of Rs.21,000/-, as mentioned in the written reply.  We have also perused the copy of email sent by the OPs to the complainant on 1.8.2016, wherein it has been stated that “this is to inform you that your booking on 21 March 2016 as you are aware that we have received overwhelming response on Kwid and we have reached to 155000+ bookings, we are process of ramping our production and looking at same we assure your likely deliver before 15^th August 2016…” But, it is worth mentioning here again that the Ops failed to deliver the car even before 15^th August 2016 or even thereafter they did not make any offer to the complainant for delivery of the car in question. Further it is the OPs who had to arrange the production of the vehicles for delivering the persons who got booked the same. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 2 to 4 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.21,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of booking i.e. 21.3.2016 till realisation.   We further direct the Ops number  2 to 4  to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        February 1, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member