Haryana

StateCommission

A/391/2015

BAS ENGG.PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GEETU JAIDKA AND ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK JAIN

13 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                             [                  

First Appeal No  :      391 of 2015

Date of Institution:      29.04.2015

Date of Decision :       13.08.2015

 

1. M/s Bas Engineering (P) Limited through its authorized representative Mr. J.S. Harit (Manager Legal), having its Registered Office at A-2, Rohtak Road, Udyog Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi-110041.

Also at:

Plot No.33, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.

2. Ring Road Honda (A unit of M/s Bas Engineering (P) Limited) through its authorized representative Mr. J.S. Harit (Manager Legal), Plot No.33, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.
3. Sales Manager, Ring Road Honda, (A unit of M/s Bas Engineering (P) Limited) through its authorized representative Mr. J.S. Harit (Manager Legal), Plot No.33, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

Versus

1.      Geetu Jaidka w/o Sh. Harsh Jaidka, Resident of House No.158, Sector 28, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s Honda Siel Cars India Limited, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.4

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Rajat Pabbi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2 (performa party).

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed against the order dated February 10^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Gurgaon, whereby complaint filed by Geetu Jaidka-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was accepted directing the appellants-opposite parties as under:-

“The complainant was harassed by the OP-1 to OP-3 as she was made to suffer unnecessarily despite receipt of the total price of the Car and thus, she is entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant is also entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.”   

2.      Geetu Jaidka-Complainant, booked a car of Honda Brio SMT Varient make of Urban Titanium colour (UTM) with M/s Ring Road Honda-opposite party No.2 on June 29^th, 2012, by paying Rs.4,68,000/-vide ‘Retail Order Form’ Exhibit C-1. The expected date of delivery of the car was July 1^st, 2012.

3.      Mr. Lalit-opposite party No.1, Manager (Sales), M/s Ring Road Honda-opposite party No.2 authorized dealer, M/s Bas Engineering Private Limited-opposite party No.3 authorized distributor and M/s Honda Siel Cars India Limited-Opposite Party No.4 is the manufacturer of Honda Brio SMT Variant cars.

4.      On June 30^th, 2012, the complainant came to take delivery of car. She was shown a car of her choice, that is, Honda Brio of Urban Titanium colour (UTM) having installed Leather Seat Covers and Side Beading but she refused to take the delivery of said car. Thereafter, another car was shown which too was not liked by her.

5.      On July 3^rd, 2012, she wrote a letter (Exhibit C-3) to the opposite party No.2 seeking refund of the amount paid by her. After receipt of the said letter on July 4^th, 2012 by the opposite party No.2, the complainant was called and after taking permission of the company, the deposited amount was refunded to her on July 11^th, 2012.

6.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that the opposite parties retained the amount of Rs.4,68,000/- without delivery of the car. It was further stated that due to non-delivery of the car by the opposite parties, she booked the car with another dealer and by that time the price of Honda car was increased by M/s Honda Siel Card India Limited due to which she had to pay Rs.3,000/- extra.

7.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued direction to the opposite parties as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

8.      It is not in dispute that the complainant booked the car on June 29^th, 2012 and the delivery was to be taken by July 1^st, 2012.  On June 30^th, 2012, the car was shown to the complainant but it was not to her liking because of leather seats as has been stated by the complainant in paragraph No.6 of the complaint.  Another car was shown to her but the same was also not of her choice.  By letter (Exhibit C-3) she asked for the refund of Rs.4,68,000/-, which was paid by the appellants on July 11^th, 2012.  In view of this, it cannot be said from any angle that there was deficiency in service on the part of appellants.  Thus, the District Forum fell in error in granting compensation to the complainant. The appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 13.08.2015

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL