Judgment : Dt.19.12.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Anushumala Bansal, residing at 162/A/127, Lake Gardens, Flat No.2, 1^st floor, Kolkata-700 045 against Ford India Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at S.P.Koil Post, Chengalpattu-603204, Tamil Nadu, OP No.1 and Saini Ford, a unit of Ashmeet Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., having its office at PS Srijan Corpn. Park, Plot No.G2, Block-GP, Tower-1, Sector-V, Kolkata-700 091, OP No.2, praying for a direction upon the O.P. to stop their unfair trade practice and further direction to pay damages for the value of the alloy wheel assessed at Rs.30,000/- with 15% interest p.a. and direction upon the OP to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the harassment of the Complainant and litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is an Advocate by profession. OP is a manufacturer of cars having its registered office at address mentioned in the cause title. OP No.2 is the authorized dealer of OP No.1 and is shown in the website. In June, 2017, Complainant raised a query of interest in Ford Figo Aspire, a car manufacturer by OP No.1. Pursuant to such query one Mr. Santu Baidya being the sales representative of the OP No.2 called the Complainant and after discussion visited the residence of the Complainant along with his senior Mr. Samir Akhter in the evening on 13.6.2017 with the brochure and price schedule of the car. After discussion the Complainant settled for Ford Figo Aspire Titanium 1.2 litre petrol variant. One of the features of the said variant was that the car would have alloy wheels instead of steel wheels. In this connection, several documents were signed between the parties and the Complainant issued a cheque No.000028 dt.14.6.2017 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. for Rs.10,000/- as booking amount  and signed certain documents. Copies of the visiting card of Mr. Santu Baidya and Sami Akhter with copies of the brochure, price list and the documents signed between the parties have been filed as Annexure B. Complainant also opted for installation of certain additional features and agreed to pay for the same separately which will be apparent from the documents annexed as annexure B. Complainant further has stated that the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that the times specified in the Rule 138  are supplied at the time of first sale of vehicle which includes a spare wheel. Complainant during the entire discussion on 13.6.2017, brought to the attention that the number of alloy wheels will have fixed in the titanium variant of the car and would only be four that the wheel of different material would be provided by the OP No.1 as the spare 5^th wheel with every car has to provide. Complainant has further stated that he with his mother Rashmi Bansal visited the show room and office of the OP No.2 on 15.6.2017 to sign various papers and to finalise the purchase of car. During such visit neither OP No.2 nor any representative informed the Complainant or her mother that a different wheel would be provided as a spare wheel 5^th wheel. Complainant was handed over receipt of Rs.10,000/- paid by her as booking amount which is annexure C. Complainant was also sent e-mail recording  the said booking by OP No.2. Thereafter, Complainant was informed that the order of his car had been placed and on 28.6.2017 the Complainant was further informed that the insurance for the car has been done. On 29.6.2017 the disbursal of the loan amount i.e. price of the car was made by HDFC. On or about 1.7.2017, Complainant was informed by her colleague that the car companies instead of supplied a spare wheel of a different material .This led the Complainant to contact the concerned sales person, Santu Baidya OP No.2. For the first time on 2.7.2017 Santu Baidya informed the Complainant that the spare wheel would not be an alloy wheel but will be of steel wheel. The Complainant shocked and enquired as to why this was not informed at the time of booking to which Mr. Baidya’s  defence was that every body knows about this. Complainant immediately wrote a complaint to the dealer, sent e-mail. But nothing was done. Further, Complainant has stated that she was induced to choose the car. But the spare wheel was not provided as per her choice. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case is heard ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the complaint petition as affidavit-in-chief.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that the Complainant has sought for a direction upon the OPs for stopping unfair trade practice and also to pay to the Complainant damages for the value of the alloy wheel assessed at Rs.30,000/- together with interest @ 15% p.a. from 7.7.2017 and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost.

            Complainant has filed Xerox copies of the documents which he received at the time of purchase of the vehicle. Further, it appears that Complainant booked aspire titanium and as per specification all the wheels were to be of alloy. Further from annexure P, it appears that Complainant took the delivery under protest as he found that the spare wheel was not of alloy. Since the allegations remained unrebutted and unchallenged, it is clear that the allegations made by Complainant is true and OP is bound to pay Rs.30,000/- which Complainant has prayed. Further, it appears that the vehicle was purchased sometime in July, 2017.

            Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost.

            Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that since the OPs who are dealers of Ford India, intentionally did not appear before this Forum, despite service of notice upon them. The Complainant got harassed and is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Hence,

ordered

             CC/390/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte. OPs are directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant and also compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within two months of this order, in default the total amount Rs.45,000/- shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.