Haryana

StateCommission

A/613/2017

DR.PARVEEN HANS - Complainant(s)

Versus

BERKELEY HYUNDAI - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ MEHTA

16 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

                            First Appeal No  :   577, 613 and 823 of 2017

                             Date of Institution:  12.05.2017, 19.05.2017 & 10.07.2017

                            Date of Decision:   16.11.2017

 

 

Appeal No.577 of 2017

 

 

 

M/s Berkeley Hyundai, (Berk Auto LLP) 375, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Panchkula through its Legal and Liaison Officer and Authorized Official Sh. Om Parkash Sharma.

                             Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Dr. Praveen Hans son of Sh. T.D. Hans, resident of House No.619, Sector 12A, Panchkula.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Hyundai Motor India through its Managing Director, 5-6^th Floor, Corporate One Baani Building, Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi.

3.      Gaurav, Ex. Sales Executive son of Kamaljit Verma, Village Dera and Post Office and Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.3 & 4

 

Appeal No.613 of 2017

 

 

Dr. Praveen Hans son of Sh. T.D. Hans, resident of House No.619, Sector 12A, Panchkula.

Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Berkeley Hyundai, (Berk Auto LLP) through the partner Ashu Dahuja.

2.      Ashu Dahuja, the partner, Berkeley Hyundai (Berk Auto LLP).

3.      Gaurav, Sales Executive, Berkeley Hyundai (Berk Auto LLP)

          Plot No.375, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Panchkula

4.      Hyundai Motor India Limited, through its Managing Director, 5-6^th Floor, Corporate One, Baani Building, Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110076.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

Appeal No.823 of 2017

 

 

 

Hyundai Motor India having its Office at 5^th Floor, Corporate One Baani Building, Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi.

                             Appellant-Opposite Party No.4

Versus

 

1.      Dr. Praveen Hans son of Sh. T.D. Hans, resident of House No.619, Sector 12A, Panchkula.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Berkeley Hyundai, (Berk Auto LLP) through the partner Ashu Dahuja.

3.      Ashu Dahuja, the partner, Berkeley Hyundai (Berk Auto LLP).

4.      Gaurav, Sales Executive, Berkeley Hyundai (Berk Auto LLP), Plot No.375, Industrial Area, Phase -1, Panchkula.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Judicial Member.

                  

 

Argued:      Shri Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for Berkeley Hyundai

                   Shri C.R. Narwal, Advocate for Dr. Praveen Hans-complainant

                   Shri Amit Gupta, Advocate for Hyundai Motor India Limited

                   Shri Gaurav, Sales Executive in person        

                  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This order disposes of afore-mentioned three appeals bearing No.577 of 2017 filed by Berkeley Hyundai-opposite party No.1 (Dealer), 613 of 2017 filed by Dr. Praveen Hans-complainant and 823 of 2017 filed by Hyundai Motor India Limited-opposite party No.4 (manufacturer) because they have arisen out of common order dated April 20^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short, ‘District Forum’) in complaint No.202 of 2016. 

2.      On October 23^rd, 2015 the complainant booked a car Creta SX (O) Hyundai make.  He paid Rs.25,000/- as booking amount to the dealer.  The expected date of delivery was 4 to 8 weeks. The complainant asked the dealer to deliver the car on the auspicious day of ‘Dhanteras’, that is, November 09^th, 2015.  On October 30^th, 2015 at about 7 P.M, the complainant visited the dealer.  Gaurav, Sales Executive of dealer informed the complainant that the car was in transit.  He asked the complainant to make full payment of car prior to the date of delivery.  The complainant requested the dealer to deliver the car on November 09^th, 2015 but the dealer refused.  The complainant purchased the car from some other dealer.  The dealer refunded Rs.22,000/- after deducting Rs.3000/- to the complainant.  The complainant requested the dealer to refund the balance amount of Rs.3000/- but to no avail. 

3.      The dealer, in its, written version pleaded that the car was available only against booking.  The expected date of delivery was 4 to 8 weeks.  The complainant was informed about the terms and conditions of the booking.  He agreed to purchase the car and paid Rs.25,000/- as booking amount.  The complainant was also informed about the cancellation charges.  The complainant did not have the money to purchase the car.  The dealer refunded Rs.22,000/- after deducting Rs.3000/- as cancellation charges to the complainant.  Remaining contents of the complaint were denied and it was prayed for its dismissal.

4.      The manufacturer, in its, written version pleaded that the dispute was between the complainant and the dealer.  It had no role to play.  The complainant was informed about the terms and conditions of the booking of the car.  As per condition No.12 d of the terms and conditions of the order booking from, Rs.3000/- was deducted by the dealer on account of cancellation of order. 

5.      The District Forum vide order dated April 20^th, 2017 allowed the complaint.  The opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.3,000/-; 12% interest on the amount of Rs.22,000/-; Rs.50,000/- harassment and Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses to the complainant on account of not delivering the car in time booked by him on October 23^rd, 2015.

6.      It is not in dispute that the car was booked on October 23^rd, 2015. At the time of booking of the car, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by the complainant. In the complaint filed by him, it has been stated that the delivery was to be given within 4 to 8 weeks after booking the car but the complainant sent an E-mail dated November 20^th, 2015 (Annexure C-10) stating to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from October 23^rd, 2015 and also Rs.2,00,000/- compensation for harassment alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum.  In the Terms & Conditions for sale of ‘Hyundai’’ Car (Annexure R/1/3), the booking cancellation charges were Rs.3000/-. After receiving the request of the complainant, amount of Rs.22,000/- was paid on November 21^st, 2015.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint.  Hence, the appeals No.577 and 823 of 2017 are allowed, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Consequently, appeal No.613 of 2017 filed by the complainant is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeals No.577 and 823 of 2017 be refunded to the respective appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

 

 

Announced 16.11.2017

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K