BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.222 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          15.05.2015

                                                        Date of Decision:            19.11.2015

Karamjit Singh Rudra son of Gurdial Singh, 938, Phase 3 B2, Mohali 160059.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     CM Auto Sales (P) Ltd., C-155, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali through  M.D.

2.     Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 through M.D.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Shri Amit Bhanot, counsel for OP No.1.

                O.P. No.2 exparte.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:

(a)    refund him Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum for 7 months.

(b)    pay him Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment.

(c)    pay him Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.

                The case of the complainant is that booked
Alto K10 white colour car with the OPs on 21.10.2014 and the delivery of the car was to be given in January, 2015. The OPs never informed him to receive the car. On 03.03.2015 the complainant talked to the salesman of the OPs and he assured that he would come tomorrow but he never came.  The complainant sent e-mail dated 16.03.2015 to the OPs for intimating him about the waiting period. The complainant received a call from one lady of CM Auto Ropar on 19.03.2015 to whom the complainant informed that the salesman never called him. Ultimately on 23.03.2015 he asked the Maruti to refund his booking amount but till date refund has not been made to him. Thus, with these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             OP No.1 in its written statement has pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as complicated questions of law and facts are involved in it.  The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The officials of OP No.1 called the complainant for delivery of the car on 04.02.2015 but the complainant did not turn up. The complainant visited after couple of days and desired to get the features of Celerio car in the booked Alto K 10 Car.  The OP No.1 informed him that it is not possible to this the complainant showed resentment and thereafter he never visited the OP No.1. The OP No.1 prepared cheque No.735127 dated 03.04.2015 for refund of the booking amount but the complainant did not turn up to collect the same.  On merits it is pleaded that the complainant never visited it and the alleged occurrence never took place.  The averments made by the complainant are vague and baseless.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

3.             None appeared for OP No.2 but a written statement has been received by post from OP No.2.  In the written statement it is pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the consumer Protection Act.  There is no privty of contract between complainant and OP No.2.  The complainant has failed to set out any specific allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  OP No.2 is manufacturer of the vehicles and does not sell the vehicles so manufactured by it to any individual customer.  The relationship between it and its dealers is governed by the provisions of Dealership Agreement. OP No.2 has not committed any deficiency in service. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has not booked the vehicle with OP No.2 so the question of receiving any call from it to the complainant does not arise.  OP No.2 has never assured any tentative period for delivery of the vehicle.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has also sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to C-3.

5.             Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Ramesh Chand Thakur, its HR ManagerEx.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1/1 to  Ex.OP-1/3.

6.             We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for OP No.1 and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by OP No.1.

7.             The booking of new car Alto K10 AMT white colour by the complainant on 21.10.2014 with OP No.1 vide receipt dated 21.10.2014 Ex.C-3  is not disputed.  Thus the booking amount of Rs.5,000/- having been duly accepted by OP No.1 vide Ex.C-3 is also not a matter of dispute.  As per the complainant he was given the tentative date of delivery of the car by January, 2015. However, the OPs have failed to deliver the vehicle to him despite having enquired on number of occasions about the waiting period as per the e-mails sent by the complainant to both the OPs vide Ex.C-1 dated 16.03.2015 and C-2 23.03.2015. Therefore, finding no response from the OPs the complainant has sought refund of the deposited amount from OP No.1 with the intervention of OP No.2. The OPs have failed either to deliver the vehicle to the complainant or to refund the amount.  Thus, causing mental agony, harassment and giving rise to the present complaint.

8.             OP No.1 in its written version has taken a categoric stand that the complainant was called to take the delivery of the car on 04.02.2015 but he did not turn up. There is no evidence on record to show any intimation from the side of OP No.1 to the complainant in this regard. Further the OP No.1 has taken another plea that the complainant wanted Celerio Optional Model with Air Bags and other things instead of Alto K10 AMT car.  Such plea of the OP No.1 is contrary to the facts as it is ample evident from Ex.C-1 the e-mail dated 16.03.2015 sent by the complainant to the OPs wherein the complainant is still asking information about the waiting period of delivery of K10 Car and further seeking information of another car which he intends to book for his own use in future. The OPs have misread the contents of the e-mail in order to get out of their liability to provide the correct information to the complainant. Further OP No.1 has taken a stand in the written version that after receiving e-mail dated 23.03.2015 Ex.C-2 it has prepared the refund cheque of Rs.5,000/- vide cheque No.735127 dated 03.04.2015 and intimated the complainant to come and collect the same vide Ex.OP-1/2. Since the complainant himself has not come to collect the cheque, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on its part. We have perused  Ex.OP-1/2 which is letter dated 03.04.2015 written by the OP No.1 to the complainant, there is only the name of the complainant and no address of the complainant mentioned on the letter. Further OP No.1 has failed to show delivery and acknowledgement of this letter to the complainant. Therefore it can be well summed up that the letter dated 03.04.2015 Ex.OP-1/2 is not a reliable piece of evidence to show the genuine and bonaifde action of the OP No.1 which it claims in its written version. 

10.           OP No.2 submitted the written statement through post. The perusal of the same shows that the OP No.2 has taken a plea that there is no privty of complainant and OP No.2 and, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer qua OP No.2. Further OP No.2 has never assured any tentative delivery of the vehicle to the complainant and hence the complaint qua OP No.2 is not maintainable as neither the complainant is a consumer qua OP No.2 nor there is any deficiency in service on its part. No doubt the complainant has not paid any booking amount to OP No.2 as the booking receipt has been issued by OP No.1 but the OP No.2 cannot shell out its liability being manufacturer for booking of the vehicle which has  been done by OP No.1 on its behalf.  Further OP No.2’s reply is absolutely silent about the receipt of e-mails Ex.C-1 and C-2 which the complainant has addressed to OP No.1 with copy to OP No.2. Remaining silent on any communication received from the complainant per se amounts to unfair trade practice writ large on the part of OP No.2.

11.           Thus, the retention of booked amount of the complainant without taking any further steps for ensuring the delivery of the vehicle for which the said amount has been received by OP No.1 is an act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and not responding to the genuine concerns of complainant by OP No.2 is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.

12.           In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to:

(a)    refund to the complainant the booking amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 21.10.2014 till actual refund.

(b)    to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

November 19, 2015.     

                                   (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

                        Member