BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 502 of 2015

Date of Instt. 23.11.2015

Date of Decision :24.11.2015

Dr.Kulbinder Singh Batty aged about 50 years son of Late Maj B.B.Bhatty, R/o E-1, New Beant Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

Cargo Motors (Tata Motors) through its Sales Manager, near BSF Chowk, GT Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party.

Complaint Under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency in service and failure to deliver the car Tata Bolt XT Model 2014 booked by him on 9.11.2015 against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant booked a car at Cargo Motors, near BSF Chowk, GT Road, Jalandhar when the complainant visited there for purchase of an old car which is seldom available with them in the exchange offers. At the showroom, the complainant met the staff there namely Parminder Singh and Gurpreet Singh who motivated the complainant to buy a new car instead but the complainant told them of his inability as he had only about 4o to 45 thousands of the finance available with him and again requested for an old car to be financed within that range. The staff member mentioned above again made an offer to get a car financed which was available with them and was of 2014 and also offered a discount of Rs.1 Lac as the car was 2014 model and also offers of the Diwali Festival besides that also assured the complainant that they would get the car financed and also get the same attached with BSNL as Mr.Gurpreet told that he had his cars attached with BSNL and they need more cars to be attached with them and as such the complainant would be having no problem in the payment of the EMIs of the said car. The motivation of the staff was convincing to the complainant and they told the complainant to book the car right then as afterwords no Diwali offer will be given and thus convinced by that the complainant booked the car with an amount of Rs.5000/- in cash which he withdrew from the ATM of BSF Chowk, nearby and Gurpreet Singh took the complainant there in a company's car and a receipt of Rs.5000/- bearing No.VR CASH1213 was issued on 9.11.2015. After that both Gurpreet and Parminder Singh visited the residence of the complainant alongwith a Sikh gentleman on 10.11.2015 and told that he was from the Bank and has come to verify about the car loan and he asked the complainant to provide with the statement of accounts of the complainant and also of his two sons who are employed with North Star Security Services, Jalandhar. And all the bank statements of the complainant and his sons were provided to them alongwith the ID proofs and photographs of all the account holders and also the ID proofs of one guarantor Baldev Raj son of Baru Ram R/o Moh.Kot Ram Dass, P.O Chugitty, Jalandhar were given i.e copy of driving license, adhaar card and a photograph was given to them. On the same day i.e. 10.11.2015 in the afternoon the complainant received a phone call from a person who told himself to be the bank manager and also asked whether the verification officer has visited him or not and also inquired about how much down payment has been made. At this the complainant replied that he has booked a car with an amount of Rs.5000/- and thereafter he asked him to make some more payment and told the complainant that he was sending a person to collect the payment. The complainant did not want to make the payment to any other person but to the showroom personnel and thus the complainant called upon at his mobile No.9877534531 and told him that the bank manager has asked to make some more payment and thereafter within a few minutes he came alongwith Gurpreet and the complainant made them a further payment of Rs.20,000/- which was withdrawn from the State Bank ATM near the complainant house on Ladhewali Road and both the person accompanied the complainant in their car of the company and the payment was made to them at the residence of the complainant. After that the complainant asked them for a receipt of the same and they replied saying that they will have to deposit the discount amount of Rs.1 Lac in the name of the complainant to the bankers and the same would be returned to them as the bank will make them the full payment of the on road price of the car and they can not give the receipt of that amount to the complainant but the receipt would be sent to the bankers. There he also told the complainant that he will inform the complainant of the amount of the receipt which was inquired from him later in the evening the same day and he told the same to be Rs.75000/- and also asked to arrange for the rest of the payment i.e. Rs.50000/- as per the receipt and told that the discount amount of Rs.1 Lac will be adjusted at the time of full payment from the bank. The complainant had only an arrangement of the amount told to them earlier and had to arrange for the rest of the amount and made them the rest of the payment of Rs.30000/- on 16.11.2015 which was taken on loan from a financier and a further amount of Rs.10000/- was taken to meet the requirement from a friend on 18.11.2015 and that person(friend) even visited the showroom to confirm the booking but Parminder was on leave that day and the other staff confirmed the booking of the car and also of the discount and he gave the complainant and amount of Rs.10000/- drawn from the AMT of Bank of Maharashtra and wished good luck to the complainant. The next day on 19.11.2015 the complainant went to the showroom and where Parminder Singh and Gurpreet were present and the complainant made a further payment of Rs.20000/- to them. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant had every reason to rely these two persons as they were the employees of the company and moreover a person came for the inquiry on the last Saturday evening and even verified from the neighbourer of the complainant Mr.Joginder Singh which compelled the complainant to rely them. The same say the complainant asked them to get him the sanction letter from the bank which they told as Allahabad Bank but they replied that yet another amount of Rs.1 Lac has to be paid by the complainant to enable the delivery of the car and then only they will take the complainant to the bank to sign the documents of the loan which is already approved and thereafter the complainant felt helpless to make any further payment and asked them to return the amount paid to them. They replied that as the amount has been deposited they will get the sane credited/transferred into the account of the complainant. The same day the complainant wrote a letter to the Manager(sales), Cargo Motors, Jalandhar and what the outcome was surprising to the complainant. Parminder Singh came to the residence of the complainant alongwith Gurpreet and started pleading that their jobs would go and they have children to look after. The complainant was further surprised and asked them how their jobs would go if at all the complainant has written to the Manager to reimburse the amount alongwith the benefits for which the complainant was entitled. Thereafter they both started weeping and told that he had placed on loan file a false and fictitious receipt and the file has been called by the manager and thus their jobs are at risk. The complainant still had a mercy upon them and told them to return the money to the complainant for the sake of their jobs and children but for their failure to return the amount taken by them but not only this they thereafter threatened the complainant of the dire consequences and refused to return the amount and said on phone call made on 22.11.2015 by Parminder Singh from his mobile number mentioned above that he will get the complainant or his sons involved in false case as his father was an ASI in Punjab Police. The complainant has been cheated in the name of such a reputed company. The complainant has booked the car at a discount of Rs.1 Lac plus other festival offers and had an eligibility of the loan as discount plus Diwali offer plus the amount of Rs.75000/- paid by the complainant exceeds the 20% criteria of the bank and even the salary certificates of two sons of complainant namely Sarabjit Singh Bhatty and Baljit Singh Bhatty has been given on the loan file. The dealers Cargo Motors (Tata Motors) should deliver the complainant car after completing the remaining formalities or pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (which includes the discount of Rs.1 Lac) alongwith other festival offers as the car was booked in the offer period alongwith the interest on this amount alongwith with the damages for the mental harassment borne by the complainant and his family and the amount of damages to be assessed by this Forum as deem fit. It is pertinent to mention that if the car is not delivered or the matter sorted out before 31.12.2015 the amount of the car would further decrease by one lac and the complainant shall be entitled for the same. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party either to get the formalities cleared at their end as promised by them or else pay the amount of Rs.75,000/- alongwith discount of Rs.1 Lac and other offers for which he is entitled. He has also claimed damages.

2. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person.

3. In substance the allegations of the complainant are that he has booked the car with the opposite party company and paid a sum of Rs.75,000/- in all to it. Further according to the complainant, the opposite party promised to give a discount of Rs.1 Lacs plus other festival offers. It is contended by complainant that opposite party has neither delivered the car as per their promise nor refunded the amount paid by him and it constitute deficiency in service. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by the complainant. The complainant had only booked the car with the opposite party and a person does not became consumer just by booking of the car. In Lovely Autos & Anr Vs. Sandeep Kumar III (2015) CPJ 156 (Punj.), recently our own Hon'ble State Commission has held as under:-

“8. Before entering into the arena of any other controversy, it was obligatory on the part of the District Forum to record a finding that the complainant was a 'consumer' within the meaning of the definition contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. As per the allegations made in the complaint, he booked the car by getting Rs.10,000/- deposited and inspite of the assurance given by the opposite parties the same was not delivered to him within 45 days, though he had got prepared a draft of Rs.7,00,000/- on their asking, as the price of the car. It was not a case of providing of service and was a case of purchase of goods, if any. The question of providing of service would have arisen in case the car had been sold to him. The facts were almost similar in Nanu Bhai's case (supra). In that case the complainant had booked the car on 23.12.1991 by making payment of Rs.1,45,052/- and according to him, opposite party No.2 had given assurance that the car would be delivered to him within two weeks as per proforma invoice and that the opposite parties were negligent and deficient in service in not delivering the car to him. It was held therein that the sale and purchase of goods should have already taken place and the complaint must relate either to any defect from which the goods suffer or charging of excessive price by the trader for the goods supplied. The complainant would not fall in the definition of the 'consumer' only on the ground that he had booked the car. There are other judgments also on the point that a person does not become a 'consumer' just by booking of the car”.

4. The ratio of this authority is fully applicable on the facts of the present case. So complainant can not be termed as consumer just on account of booking of car with opposite party. The remedy of the complainant, if any is to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.

5. Consequently, the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

24.11.2015 Member Member President