DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 929 of 2009 Date of Inst: 06.07.2009 Date of Decision:23.11.2010 Ghansham Singh son of Sh.Ramji Lal r/o House No.6197, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S M/s Berkeley Automobiles Limited, through its Managing Director, Berkeley House No.24 Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Party QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Dhan Bahadur, Adv. Proxy for Sh.R.S.Dhiman, Advocate for complainant Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Adv. for OP. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Ghansham Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to:- i) Pay Rs.5000/- per day being the loss suffered by the complainant on account of non-delivery of the vehicle till the date of delivery ii) Pay interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.4,25,000/- from the date of booking. iii) Pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. iv) Pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was desirous of purchasing the Swift Dezire VXI Car. On 11.04.2009, he booked Maruti Swift Dezire VDI Car (White Colour) with M/s Berkeley Automobiles Ltd. by depositing Rs.50,000/- against receipt (Annexure C-1). The complainant was assured that the car would be delivered to him on 10.06.2009 i.e. within 2 months from the date of its booking. According to the complainant, he paid the entire price of the vehicle as demanded by the OP through cheques (Annexure C-2 to C-6) well before the date of delivery of the vehicle. According to the complainant, the delivery of the vehicle was not made to him despite his repeated requests and service of the legal notice dated 20.06.2009. According to the complainant, OPs are not following any procedure in supplying the vehicles and there are number of vehicles which have been received during this time and the same were delivered to the persons who have booked later on. It has been pleaded that the delivery of the vehicle was given to him only 15.07.2009 that too after service of legal notice. The case of the complainant is that the act and conduct of OP in giving the delivery of the car to the persons out of their turn with an intention to earn black money amounts to unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OP, the facts with regard to the booking of the car and receipt of the total amount towards the price of the vehicle have not been denied. According to OP, the delivery of the vehicle entirely depends upon the supply of vehicles by manufacturing company i.e. Maruti Udyog Ltd. According to OP, the complainant has received interest @ 12% on the booking amount of Rs.50000/- besides interest @ 3% on the remaining amount deposited by him and therefore, the complainant has now no cause of action to file the complaint qua it. It has further been pleaded that the complainant himself has made the cutting and addition by writing two months only because it never assured the complainant that the delivery of the vehicle shall be made within two months because there was already huge booking ahead of the complainant. In these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. Admittedly the complainant booked the Maruti Swift Dezire VDI Car (White Colour) on 11.04.2009 by paying Rs.50,000/- as booking amount. It has also been admitted that the complainant made the payment of the entire price of the car well before the delivery of the vehicle whereas the delivery of the car was made to him on 15.07.2009 against the delivery period of two months. 7. The grouse of the complainant is that at the time of booking, he was told that the car would be made available to him within 2 months from the date of its booking whereas, in fact, the car was delivered to him after 3 months instead of 2 months. The case of the OP is that the delay in delivery of the car is because of non-supply of the vehicles by the manufacturer i.e. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 8. It was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that OPs are indulging in unfair trade practice by selling cars at higher rates to the persons who booked their cars later in time. The complainant has not placed on record any document to show that the OP is selling the car to the customers out of their turn. Thus, there is no material on record to prove that any car was sold to a person earlier to the complainant who had booked the car later in time. Otherwise also, an offer was given to the complainant for payment of interest from the date of depositing the booking amount till the delivery of the car and the complainant has accepted the said offer. In our view, once the complainant has already accepted the said offer of interest, he has no grouse to file the present complaint against OPs. 9. Hence, the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service against the OP. 10. In view of the above findings, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 23.11.2010 sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
C.C.No.929 of 2009 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 22.11.2010. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 23.11.2010 Member President Member
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
