BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint Case No   : 215 of 2010

Date of Institution :  12.04.2010

Date of  Decision   :  22.02.2011

Balraj Singh Rathee s/o Sh. Gagan Ram, #174, Adrash Nagar, Pipli Wala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]     Canteen Stores Department through General Manager, Army Headquarters, DHQ, P.O., New Delhi – 01.

[2]     Lakhwinder Singh, Area Manager, Canteen Stores Department (Main), Barrack No.2, P.B. No. 8, Allenby Road, Ambala Cantt- 133001.

[3]     Parbhakaran, Assistant Manager, Canteen Stores Department (Main), Barrack No.2, P.B. No.8, Allenby Road, Ambala Cantt – 133001.

[4]  Hind Motors India Ltd., through its General Manager, 15, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

[5]  Tata Motors Finance Ltd., through its Manager, SCO No. 1124-1125, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

                           ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA               PRESIDENT

SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                MEMBER

            MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA                 MEMBER

PRESENT: Sh. Harish Sharma, Adv. for Complainant.

           None for OPs No.1, 2 & 3.

           Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Adv. for OP No.4.

           OP No. 5 ex-parte.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

­­­­­­­

          Concisely put, the Complainant submitted an indent form along with affidavit and other requisite documents for purchasing Indigo Manza Aqua Q.J car through CSD, as per the policy of Govt. of India, but OP No. 2, who is the Area Manager of CSD Ambala Cantt, did not process his application, due to which the Complainant had to file CWP No. 4106 of 2010 on 08.03.2010, in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and it was only on issuance of notice of motion that OP No.2 granted sanction for purchase of the aforesaid car vide letter dated 20.03.2010 (Annexure C-3). Thereafter, Complainant arranged a loan of `3.00 lacs for the purchase of aforesaid car from OP No. 5 through OP No. 4 and on 8.4.2010, sent his representative Sh. Sarvan Kumar with the demand draft of `5,13,225/-, and authority letter, but OP No.2 refused to accept the said draft and rather, desired the Complainant to furnish an affidavit, just to harass and humiliate the Complainant. As instructed by OP No. 2, the Complainant submitted the said affidavit  on 9.4.2010 to OP No.3, since OP No. 2 was not available in his office. OP No.3 received the affidavit, demand draft, availability certificate issued by OP No.4 and a covering letter dated 09.04.2010 which carried a specific request to release the Cheque/DD along with release order in favour of OP No.4 so as to facilitate the immediate delivery of car to him by OP No.4. But OP No.3 refused to issue the receipt and acknowledge the same and , which as per the Complainant, was done on the instructions and behest of OP No.2, just to harass the Complainant and finally did not issue the release order in favour of OP No.4. Since due to non-issuance of release order, the Complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and financial loss, the present complaint has been filed, alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, directing the OPs to pay compensation of `1.00 lac, along with `5500/- towards cost of litigation and also interest on the loan obtained for the purpose or in the alternative, OP No.5 be directed to waive off the interest on the loan till the car is actually delivered to the Complainant.

2]        Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of OP No.5. Therefore, OP No.5 was proceeded against exparte on 24.05.2010.

3]        OPs No. 1 to 3, who are the main parties in the this case, in their joint written statement/ reply, while admitting the core facts of the case/reply, pleaded that the sanctioning authority in case of car purchase was CSH HQ, Mumbai and Area Manager was only the forwarding officer. Hence, the documents of the Complainant were forwarded to CSD HQ, Mumbai and sanction for the same received on 19.3.2010 in a routine manner, which was duly communicated to the Complainant vide letter dated 20.3.2010. It was asserted that whosoever approached the Depot/ OPs with complete documents/ payment, release orders, were issued with proper receipt. As per the policy of the Department, payments to dealers were released only after the receipt of bills from them in token of having delivered the vehicle to the customer. Since the Depot has never received any payment from the Complainant, therefore, there was no deficiency as the job of the Depots starts once proper payment was made against receipt by the customer. While submitting that Complainant is still at liberty to take the car from the OPs, as per his entitlement, from any approved dealer located under the jurisdiction of Depot/ OPs i.e. in the Haryana state, all other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted.

4]        OP No. 4, in its written statement/ reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case/reply, pleaded that there was no business partnership between OP No. 4 & OP No.5. It was asserted that the role of OP No. 4 would start only after receiving the entire amount or voucher whatsoever from the OPs No. 1 to 3 and 5 and without receiving the entire amount, it cannot release/ deliver the vehicle to the customer. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

5]        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]        We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs No.1 to 3 & 4 (OP No.5 being ex-parte). We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant/OP No.4. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]   The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having booked an Indigo Manza Aqua Q.J. car through CSD, as per the Policy of the Govt. of India, with the OPs (OPs No. 1 to 3) and that he could not obtain the aforesaid car through CSD, although he had got prepared a Bank draft of `5,13,225/-, which he claims to have sent through his authorized representative Sh. Sarvan Kumar, along with the authority letter and which was initially refused by OP No. 2, who wanted the Complainant to file another affidavit, that the same was submitted by the Complainant on 9.4.2010 to OP No.3, in the absence of OP No.2, in his office, but still nothing was done to ensure the delivery of the car to the Complainant, so far, have all been well established.  The Complainant further says that since his application for the delivery of the car through CSD was not being processed by OPs No. 1 to 3, right at the beginning he had to file a C.W.P. No. 4106 of 2010 on 8.3.2010 against these OPs in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and it was only on the issuance of the notice of motion that OP No. 2 granted sanction for the purchase of the aforesaid car vide letter dated 20.3.2010 (Annexure C-3). Later on, the Complainant sent his authorized representative to OP No. 2 on 8.4.2010, for the deposit of the full price of the car i.e. `5,13,225/- and the letter was acknowledged by the office of OP No. 2 on the same date. As a part of the processing the case for the final delivery of the car to the Complainant, OP No. 4 issued a proforma invoice –cum- availability certificate, addressed to OP No.2, indicating the total price of the car as `5,13,725/-. The prescribed affidavit submitted by the Complainant to OP No.2 is at Annexure C-5. The bank draft, for `5,13,225/-, in favour of “Canteen Stores Department, Public Fund (Account) Main”, is at Annexure C-6. The Complainant addressed another letter to OP No.2 on 09.04.2010 (Annexure C-8), intimating him that he had booked the car in question through CSD Ambala Cantt. on 6.2.2010, for which sanction had already been granted on 20.3.2010. OP No.2 was further informed that the draft amounting to `5,13,225/-, representing the cost of the Indigo Manza Aqua Q.J. car, along with requisite documents had already been deposited with OP No.2. The Complainant further said in the letter that OP No. 4 i.e. the Dealer of the car – M/s Hind Motors India Ltd., Chandigarh had issued proforma invoice –cum- availability certificate on 9.4.2010 and made a condition that the vehicle will be released to the CSD customer on receipt of the cheque/ draft from CSD Ambala Cantt., in view of its previous experience with CSD Ambala. Finally, the Complainant requested OP No. 2 to release the cheque/ draft in favour of the Dealer (OP No.4), along with the release order to avoid any further complication/ dispute in the matter. But, OP No. 2 appears to have taken no action on this letter, till date.  

ii]  OPs No. 1 to 3, who are the main parties in this case, in their written statement/ reply, while admitting the core facts of the case, pleaded that the real sanctioning authority in the case of purchase of cars through CSD was CSH HQ, Mumbai and the Area Manager, CSD (OP No.2) was only the Forwarding Officer. Hence, the documents of the Complainant were forwarded to the CSD HQ and the same were received back on 19.3.2010 and the sanction was communicated to the Complainant on 20.3.2010. The OPs further say that whosoever approaches the Depot/ OPs with complete documents, along with payment release order, were issued with proper receipt. It further says that as per the Policy of the Department, payments to Dealers were released only after the receipt of the bills from them in token of having delivered the vehicle to the Customer. In the present case, since the Depot has never received any payment from the Complainant, therefore, there was no deficiency on its part and that the Complainant is still at liberty to take the car from the OPs, as per his entitlement from any approved Dealer located under the jurisdiction of the Depot or the OPs in the State of Haryana.

iii] OP No.4, which is only a proforma party in this case, in its written statement/ reply, while admitting the facts of the case, pleaded that there was no business partnership between OP No. 4 and OP No.5. It was clarified that the only role of OP No. 4 starts after receiving the entire amount or an appropriate voucher whatsoever from the OPs No. 1 to 3 & 5 and without receiving the entire amount, it cannot release/deliver the vehicle to the customer. Based on these contentions, it has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint qua it with heavy costs. 

iv]  OP No. 5 did not appear before the Forum throughout the proceedings and as such, was proceeded against exparte on 24.5.2010.

7]        From the above detailed facts of the case, it is quite clear that the Complainant was in fact, a genuine and bonafide purchaser of Indigo Manza Aqua Q.J. Car and wanted to buy the same through CSD, on account of the fact that there are concessional rates, if the car is purchased through CSD to which he was entitled to, being an ex-Air Force personnel (PBOR). From the documents placed on record by the Complainant, especially, Annexure C-1 to C-8, it shows that the Complainant duly booked the aforesaid car for purchasing through CSD with OPs No. 1 to 3, especially, OP No.2. But, he was in trouble from day one, so much so, that even for getting the sanction for the purchase of the aforesaid car through CSD Scheme, which is an entirely routine matter, he had to knock at the doors of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and it was only on the issuance of notice of motion to OPs No. 1 to 3 that OP No. 2 granted sanction on 20.3.2010. Both the Complainant, as well as the OPs admit that the procedure is so mechanical and trivial that on one particular day i.e. 9.4.2010, the OPs had issued release order to about 200 consumers on the same one day, but the Complainant was somehow singled out and not given the release order, for the reasons best known to the OPs. This fact has been candidly admitted by the OPs, as well, but with a rider that whosoever approached the Depot with proper documents/ payments, the same were duly acknowledged and documents issued to their satisfaction and the Complainant should also have made the payment against proper receipt, which he has not done for the reasons best known to him. 

8]        There is no document on record, in which the OPs, especially, OP No. 2 had ever raised any objection in respect of non-submission of proper documents or not receiving the payment from the Complainant. Letter of the Complainant at Annexure C-8, dated 9.4.2010, also shows that the Complainant had fulfilled all necessary formalities, including submission of an affidavit, deposit of the Bank Draft amounting to `5,13,225/-, the invoice-cum-availability certificate as issued by OP No.4 also requesting OP No.2 to release the Cheque/Draft in favour of OP No.4, but nothing was done by the OPs. OP No.2 was so arrogant that he had the audacity to even refuse a formal acknowledgement of the documents, received by him from the Complainant, which in itself is a serious deficiency of service, as well as an unfair trade practice on his part, apart from the other OPs.

9]        The arguments made by the OPs as stated in the written statement are that as per the Policy of the Department, payments to Dealers were released only after the receipt of bills from them, in token of having delivered the vehicle to the Customer and that the Depot has never received the payment from the Complainant. This is in contradiction to the letter of the Complainant dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure C-4), which has been duly acknowledged by the officials of OP No.2 and no objection has ever been raised that the Complainant had not made the payment to the office of OP No.2. The name of the agent – Mr. Sarvan Kumar also appears in the letter. The letter in question has not only been received by the office of OP No.2, but also countersigned by the Commanding Officer, who is a senior functionary in the army authorities (a Colonel). It is not understood at all as to how could OP No. 4 i.e. M/s Hind Motors Ltd. release the vehicle to the Complainant, without receiving the full payment of the car from the CSD office, as well as a proper release order, from them. The Complainant has clarified that OP No. 4 would deliver the vehicle only on receipt of the cheque/ draft from CSD Ambala Cantt., keeping in view its previous experience with CSD Ambala. In the present case, the OPs No. 1 to 3, especially, OP No. 2 has neither returned the Bank Draft to the Complainant, nor sent the proceeds of the Draft to M/s Hind Motors Ltd. (OP No.4), who were the Dealer, supplying the said car to the Complainant. This is clearly an act of extreme highhandedness on the part of OP No.2. In addition, this is gross dereliction of duty on his part.

10]       It is obvious and fully proved that the OPs were hell bent in harassing and torturing the Complainant, who was an exserviceman, having retired from Indian Air Force as PBOR on 31.5.2006, after serving the Organization for 20 years. At every step of the case, he was harassed and humiliated by the OPs for no fault of his. As rightly pointed out by him, probably, the authorities of the OPs got disturbed and annoyed for his knocking at the doors of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court for obtaining the sanction for the purchase of the car. Right from that point of time, till the end of the case, the OPs left no stone unturned in spoiling the entire case of the Complainant and finally, ensured that he did not get the desired car through the CSD Department. This is clearly an act of villainity on the part of OPs.

11]       Keeping in view the above said detailed study of the case, in our considered opinion, the Complainant had done all what he was required to do to not only book the car for its purchase through CSD, but also completed all required formalities to the best of his capability. Despite all that, the OPs did not do their duty and simply harassed and humiliated the Complainant and finally saw to it that he did not get his car at a concessional rate through CSD, which he was entitled to get, being an ex-Air Force PBOR. The OPs clearly succeeded in their nefarious mission and put the Complainant to not only financial loss, great personal inconvenience/ bother and loss of time for about one year, but also caused immense mental pain, agony and harassment to him by behaving in a callous and inconsiderate manner towards him. Thus, there is a lot of merit, weight and substance in the present complaint and hence, it must succeed. We, therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs (OPs No. 1 to 3). In fact, the acts of OP No. 2 towards the Complainant have been highly unprofessional and unbecoming of a senior official like him that too working in a disciplined force i.e. Indian Armed Forces.

12]       So far as OP No. 4 is concerned, as already stated, it is only a proforma party, who was to deliver the car to the Complainant only on receiving payment in full from OP No.2. Since the payment was not forthcoming for the purchase of the car by the Complainant, OP No.4 could not deliver the car to the Complainant. Therefore, there is neither deficiency in service, nor unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.4 and hence, the complaint is dismissed qua OP No. 4.

13]       So far as OP No. 5 is concerned, it was only a loan sanctioning authority, who had granted financial assistance to the Complainant to enable him to purchase the car. It had no role whatsoever in ensuring the delivery of the car to the Complainant through CSD, as it is purely a private finance company dealing in granting loans for financing the purchase of vehicles. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed qua OP No.5 also.

14]       In view of the foregoings, we decide the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs No.1 to 3 and pass the following order.

15]       The OPs No.1 to 3 shall, jointly and severally, make the following payments to the Complainant:-

(i) The OPs shall pay a compensation of `35,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant, on account of not processing/ finalizing his case for the delivery of Indigo Manza Aqua Q.J. car through CSD, even after the Complainant had completed all necessary formalities, including making full payment of `5,13,225/- to the OPs, required in the case, as per CSD Scheme of Govt. of India.

(ii) The OPs shall pay a sum of `5,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.

16]       The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall, jointly and severally, pay `35,000/-, along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.04.2010, till the date of realization, besides paying the costs of litigation of `5,000/-.

17]     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room.

Announced

22.02.2011

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                   (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

(MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER