DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.202 of 13-05-2011
Decided on 19-07-2011
Raj Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Sh. Girdhari Lal, Resident of Ward No.6, Gali Panditan Wali, Mandi Kalanwali,
Distt. Sirsa. .......Complainant
Versus
Force Motors through its Chairman, Mumbai-Pune Road, Akrudi, Pune.
Capital Automobiles through its Manager, Dabwali Road, opposite Woods Resort, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Naveen Goyal, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh. Navneet Garg, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 to purchase one Cruiser, Model 2011, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to the opposite party No.2 and the remaining amount was raised through Indusind Bank by taking loan. On 20.04.2011, the opposite party No.2 called the complainant to take the delivery of the vehicle but during test drive, he found that the vehicle was defective and the opposite party No.2 also admitted the same and called him again on 23.04.2011 to collect the new vehicle. The complainant visited to the opposite party No.2 on 23.04.2011 but the opposite party No.2 was not having vehicle to deliver as such, he was again called on 03.05.2011 and on inspection, it was found that the window of the vehicle was defective and the opposite party No.2 also admitted the same but till today, it has failed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to refund the amount alongwith interest but the opposite party flatly refused to refund the same. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to refund Rs.1,00,000/- as the earnest money of the vehicle with interest @ 18% p.a. alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The opposite party No.2 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant booked his vehicle with the opposite party No.2 and it has booked the same with the opposite party No.1 and has got the delivery of the vehicle on 30.04.2011 after making the full payment of the vehicle i.e. Rs.5,19,893/-. The opposite party has further pleaded that the complainant has neither taken the delivery of the vehicle nor has made the payment of the remaining amount. Moreover, he is the dealer of the opposite party No.1 and he cannot supply defective vehicle to any of the customer as the vehicles are manufactured by the opposite party No.1, who is responsible for any defect in the vehicle and provides the warranty on each and every new vehicle. He supplies the vehicle in the same condition to the customers. The complainant has concocted a false story regarding calling the complainant to take the delivery on 20.04.2011 and 23.04.2011. After receiving the vehicle from the opposite party No.1, the complainant was called telephonically and even the employees of the opposite party No.2 visited personally but he never came forward to take the delivery of the vehicle. Even today, the opposite parties are ready to supply the vehicle to the complainant subject to making the remaining payment with interest @ 18% p.a. for the delayed payment.
3. The opposite party No.1 despite service of summon/notice has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, exparte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.1.
3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The complainant had paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party No.2 for the purchase of Cruiser vehicle and the remaining amount was to be taken as loan from Indusind Bank. The complainant has further submitted that on 20.04.2011, he was called by the opposite party No.2 for taking the test drive. During test drive, he found that the vehicle was defective. He was again called by the opposite party No.2 to collect the new vehicle on 23.04.2011 but the vehicle was not available with the opposite parties, so they asked the complainant to approach on 03.05.2011 and on inspection, it was found that the window of the vehicle was defective. The complainant had asked the opposite party No.2 to refund of Rs.1,00,000/- as the opposite parties have failed to deliver him the vehicle.
6. The opposite party No.2 has submitted in its written statement that when the complainant booked his vehicle with the opposite party No.2, it has further booked the vehicle with the opposite party No.1 and has got the delivery of the vehicle on 30.04.2011 after making the full payment of the vehicle i.e. Rs.5,19,893/-. Thereafter, the complainant was asked to take the delivery of the vehicle but the complainant has neither taken the delivery of the vehicle nor has made the payment of the remaining amount. The opposite party No.2 has further submitted that the opposite party No.2 is entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on Rs.4,19,893/- from 30.04.2011 till actual payment by the complainant. The opposite party No.2 has denied in para no.3 in its reply on merit that they have ever called the complainant to take the delivery of the vehicle on 20.04.2011 and 23.04.2011. The opposite party is still ready to deliver the vehicle to the complainant and it has further submitted that the complainant has never applied for the cancellation of the booking of the vehicle or asked for the refund of Rs.1,00,000/-.
7. The complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party No.2 on 20.04.2011 vide Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. The complainant was never asked by the opposite parties to take test drive of the vehicle or to take the delivery of the vehicle on 20.04.2011 or on 23.04.2011. The opposite parties have placed on file Ex.R-2 which is the Commercial Invoice dated 30.04.2011 through which the opposite party No.2 purchased the vehicle from the opposite party No.1. On receiving the vehicle from the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.2 called the complainant to take the delivery of the vehicle but he neither turned to take the delivery of the vehicle nor asked for the refund of Rs.One Lac.
8. In the present case, the complainant has never applied to the opposite parties before coming to this Forum for refund of price deposited by him. The appropriate method for the complainant was to apply for the refund of the amount if she did not want to take the delivery of the vehicle.
9. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted without any order as to cost. The complainant is directed to apply for the refund of Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite party No.2 within 15 days and the opposite party No.2 is directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of application from the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ’
Pronounced
19.07.2011
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) (Amarjeet Paul)
Member Member
