Delhi

StateCommission

A/12/223

AALIANZ AUTOMOBILE - Complainant(s)

Versus

DOLY CHHATWAL & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 11.01.2017

First Appeal No. 223/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 22.11.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 206/2006 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (New Delhi) ‘M’ Block Ist Floor Vikas Bhawan I.P.Estate New Delhi)

In the matter of:

M/s Allianz Automobiles

Through its Anil Kapoor

Kamal Cinema Building

Safdarjung Enclave

New Delhi                                            .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Ms. Doly Chhatwal

W/o Sh. Tejwant S. Chhatwal

R/o C-6/25, Safdarjung Development Area

New Delhi

 

2. M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd.

Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Marg

Vasant Kunj

New Delhi                                        ..........Respondent

 

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                          -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.         Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum VI. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.
2.         Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant booked a Baleno Vxi Car with M/s Aalianz Automobiles Kamal Cinema Building Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi (in short the OP-2). M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, Jeevan Prakash 25 Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi is the manufacturer of the vehicle. Grievance of the complainant was that she faced difficulty in taking the delivery of the car from OP-2. She had to stay there overnight with her husband. There was no staff or the manager. She was charged an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in excess of the agreed price of Rs. 6,12,969/-. Registration certificate was delivered to her during the court proceedings only. OP-2 expressed his regrets for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. His letter dated 14.11.2005 is placed on record.
3.         On the basis of the aforesaid allegation and reply, Ld. District Forum passed the orders which are impugned before this Commission.
4.         In its appeal the appellant submitted that he had no control over the RTO for issuing the registration certificate.Appellant/OP-1 submitted that difference in the price of the vehicle was due to the fact that the complainant got her vehicle financed at her own level. For this reason, the discount of 5% was not admissible to her.
5.         In its reply to the appeal respondent/complainant submitted that she never expressed her desire to get the vehicle financed from any bank through the appellant/OP-1. Respondent/complainant referred to the contents of the letter dated 25.08.2005 written to her by OP-2/respondent.
6.         Perusal of the abovesaid letter dated 25.08.2005 shows that OP-2 admitted that the complainant had to face difficulties due to miscommunication amongst the various agencies involved in the deal, including the OP-2. Be that as it may, in view of the admission on the count of inconvenience caused to the complainant, Ld. District Forum rightly awarded the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/-. The impugned orders do not warrant any interference from this Commission. Appeal is hence dismissed.
7.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)