Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/144/2022

Pankaj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, Tata Motors, Passenger Vehicles Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Devender Singh Parmar

11 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

                                                           Complaint No.:    144 of 2022.                                                                                      Date of Institution:31.05.2022.                                                                                       Date of Order:       11.12.2024

Pankaj Kumar aged 26 years son of Sh. Sant Kumar, resident of village Malkosh, Sub-Tehsil Bond Kalan District Charkhi Dadri, Mobile No. 8684906055.

                                                                                                            Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Tata Motors, Passenger Vehicles Limited, Head Office-Floor No.3 & 4, Plot No.18, Nanawati Mahalya, Mudhana Sethi Marg, BSE Fort, Mumbai-400001 through Its General  Manager.
2. Tata Motors, Regional office,-1^st Floor, Jiwantara Building, Sansad Marg, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its Regional Manager.
3. Mahadev Motors, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani, Authorized Dealer Tata Motors through its Authorized Signatory.
4.  

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

Sitting:        Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President,

                   (Proceeded under Section 64 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Present:          Sh. Devender Singh Parmar, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Rajpal Verma, Advocate  for OP No.1 and 2.

Sh. Rakesh Sangwan, Advocate for OP No.3.

                            

ORDER

1. The brief facts of the case are that on dated 29.11.2021, complainant booked a Tata Punch car to gift her sister in the Legan/Tikka ceremony to be organized on dated 18.01.2021 from the showroom of respondent no.3. In this regard, complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 11,000/- in cash in the office of OP no.3 as token money of the vehicle and the employee of the OP no.3 has issued a receipt no.1345 dated 29.11.2021 to the complainant regarding this and on the back side of the receipt, the employee  scribed in his own  handwriting that he will deliver the said vehicle to complainant  on dated 08.01.2022.  When on dated 14.12.2021 then the complainant went to the office of OP no.3 to deposit the remaining amount of the vehicle then employee of the OP no.3 said that they are unable to deliver the booked vehicle.   Due to non delivery of the booked vehicle, complainant suffered mental and physical agony. He further averred that he visited the showroom of another company Vertex Nissan, Gurugram on dated 15.12.2021 and took the quotation and on the same day, on dated 15.12.2021, complainant  booked  a car Megnite Nissan and deposited a sum of Rs.11,000/- as token money and they issued receipt no.2627 dated  15.12.2021 to the complainant in this regard. In this way complainant had to buy another car on expensive rate in hurry.  Complainant also averred that despite of repeated request and demands, the employee of OP no.3 not returned the deposited token money of the complainant.  Due to the non delivery of booked vehicle and not return the token money to the complainant by OP no.3, the complainant suffered mental and physical agony and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
2.              On notice, all the opposite party put an appearance and file their written statement respectively.  OP No.1 and 2 has contended that the complainant is not a consumer to them and business with the OP No.3 on the principal to principal basis and any deficiency caused by the OP No.3, the OP no.1 and 2 being manufacturer are not responsible. The OP No.3 contended that when the complainant booked the car. It was already told to him that Tata Panch Car is not available in this stoke and there is six to seven months waiting period and it is not possible to deliver the vehicle within any time limit.
3.             Both the parties in support of their respective averments tendered in documentary evidence alongwith their respective affidavits and adduced certain documents.  Reference of relevant record shall be given in this order.
4.             I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the convinced view that the present complaint has merit and the same deserves acceptance for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.
5.             It is admitted fact that the complainant has deposited Rs.11,000/- with the OP No.3 vide receipt Ex.C1 dated 29.11.2021 but on this receipt there is no any authenticated  proof with respect to the date of the delivery. Moreover, the Op no.3 has also failed to place on record any document with respect to return the booking amount to the complainant. OP No.1 and 2 are the manufacturer and they deal with the OP No.3 with principal to principal basis. Hence, they are not liable for any deficiency. The complainant has also failed to prove on record that he has purchased the another vehicle to gift her sister in her marriage. Hence, the only op no.3 found deficiency in service by not returning Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant so far. As such the complaint is accepted and same is hereby partly allowed with cost by directing OP no.3 as under:-

1. To return the booking amount Rs.11,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest 9% from the date of depositing  the token money i.e. 29.11.2021.  
2. To pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only)  for mental harassment and agony.
3. To pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only ) as litigation expenses.

                        The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which further interest @12% shall be paid by the OP no.3 for the delayed period on all above mentioned under clause (i) to (iii) till its realization. 

6.                     If the order of this Commission is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to file execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the defaulting party will be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not less than one month, but which may extend to three years or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, but which may extend to Rs. one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: - 11.12.2024