COMPLAINT CASE NO. 435/2014

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST), GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

Complaint No.: 435/14

Date of Institution: 08.05.2014

Date of Order :18.05.2016

Sh. Pranav Sachdeva

S/o Sh. Sushil Sachdeva

R/o H. No. 3470, Nichal

Son Road, Mori Gate, Delhi – 110 006                                                                                      Complainant

Vs.

Globus Chevrolet

Globus Motocorp Pvt.

Showroom ZB-43 & 44/487, Zulphe

Bengal, Dilshad Garden

Main Road, Delhi – 110 095                                                                                                          Opponent

Corum:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Sh. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Complainant’s Advocate: Rajesh Kumar Sharma

Opponent’s Standing Counsel : Ex-Parte

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant has filed a complaint for compensation of Rs. 10,15,000/- against OPs on account of deficiency in service.

The facts in brief are that complainant booked a car model LS .ABS Diesel by paying advance booking amount of Rs. 30,000/- vide cheque No. 759738.  He preferred the car in two colours – white and linen beige, which was mentioned on the receipt.  He was surprised when on 30.12.2013, he received a call from the OP that both the colours were not available. 

He was offered to buy higher model colours linen beige and was assured to have a discount of Rs. 40,000/- .  The complainant has a correspondence with the OP through mail.  The OP delivered the car on 12.01.2014 to the complainant and the complainant paid the balance amount vide receipt GP 1224 of dated 12.01.2014. He made a request that the car being offered on 30.12.2013 manufacture and so would be written on the RC of the car.  He would be provided with the certificate confirming the same.  This was assured by the OP.  The complainant was shocked when he received the copy of the RC as the OP did not mention the manufacturing month and the date of the vehicle.  He immediately contacted at OP’s office but he could not get any satisfactory reply.  He sent number of complaints through mail but did not have any satisfactory reply.  The complainant, on 11.03.14, sent a detailed mail wherein it was mentioned:-

“How many false commitment should I take from respondent r dealership.  I must say it has been a pathetic experience buying a new car from respondent r dealership.  Referring to the mail I was given commitment by respondent r dealer ship that manufacturing month and date of my vehicle mentioned on the RC would be Dec 2013, but unfortunate the same has not done.  From the day I have bought the car I am facing issues with it, noise from company fitted music system it took more that a month for respondent r service centre to get the same resolved and that to after I bought into there notice that noise comes from that part approx 5 times I have visited respondent r service centre but customer concern was taken up with no interest CRM working at respondent r showroom are not fully aware bout the product, never responds to call no interest in solving customer concern.  I request respondent to please get my RC rectified as I driving vehicle without the same and violating traffic rules.  I have been told by Mr. Khurshid/Achrya that RTO have stopped mentioning month as new guidelines, but FYR PFA RC copy issued by the same authority mentioning the same”.

However, the complainant did not get any satisfactory reply.  He sent a legal notice on 14.03.14 but have not got a satisfactory reply.  Thus, he has prayed that respondent be directed to immediately provide the RC showing the month and date of the car DL 13C 7199.  He has further claimed an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and pain along with Rs. 15,000/- as litigation charges.

Notice of the complaint was given to the OP who did not put the appearance; hence, they have been proceeded ex-parte.   The complainant has not led Evidence though given opportunity.

I have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant.  During the course of arguments, the complainant, who was present in the court has stated that the OP have rectified the defect which were pointed out by him.  The only grievance which he has made is with regard to non-mention of manufacturing month and date of his vehicle No. DL 13C 7199 in the RC.  Non-mention of month and year of manufacturing in the RC does not come within the definition of “deficiency in service”.  Therefore, his complaint does not survive on the same ground and stands dismissed. 

Copy of this order be sent to parties as per rule and file be sent to Record Room.

(P.N. TIWARI)                                                                                                                    (SUKHDEV SINGH)                            

Member                                                                                                                              President