Punjab

Sangrur

CC/454/2017

Ramesh Kumar Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Kumar Bhalla

12 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    454

                                                Instituted on:      06.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       12.03.2018

 

 

Ramesh Kumar Garg son of Sh. Subhash Chand, resident of Opposite PWD Rest House, Rani Di Kothi, Sangrur, partner of Shubham Food Products C/o Shubham Food Products, Ubhawal Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             HDFC Bank Limited, Head Office: Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parels, Mumbai through its Managing Director.

2.             Car Trade.com, D-14, Himalaya House, 11^th Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Mark, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant            :       Shri Amit K Bhalla, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.1            :       Shri Sanjay Khanna, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.2            :       Shri Anudeep Sharma, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Ramesh Kumar Garg, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Hyundai i20 car Sports model (model 2015) bearing registration number PB-05-T-0767 from OP number 1 through online auction conducted by OP number 2 vide auction ID number 671414 seller name ID HDFC Bank Limited/MXC1859A, seller reference number 34188534 for Rs.3,66,000/- to the OP number 1 through bank transfer on 30.09.2016.  Further case of the complainant is that after taking the delivery of the vehicle in question, the same was sent to Park Hyundai, Sangrur for its repairs, where the complainant spent an amount of Rs.57,000/- on its repairs.  The grievance of the complainant is that in the month of January 2017, he came to know that the said car model is 2011 instead of 2015, as such, he immediately approached the OP number 1 by sending an email stating the wrong model of the car and in reply to that the OP number 1 sent an email stating that they will look into the matter.  Various mails were exchange between the complainant and the OP number 1 and in last on 8.8.2017, refunded the amount of Rs.3,66,000/- only after taking back the delivery of the car in question.  The case of the complainant is that he suffered in the hands of the OP number 1 due to their mistake and suffered loss of interest as well as the amount of Rs.57,000/- which was spent by him on the repairs of the car.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,66,000/- and further to pay the amount of Rs.57,000/- spent by him on its repairs and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is not a consumer,  that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is false and frivolous one.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the car in question through online auction on 30.9.2016 for Rs.3,66,000/- and it is further stated that the OP number 1 has no concern with the complainant, as the complainant purchased the car through OP number 2.  It is stated that due to gesture of goodwill, the OP number 2 refunded the amount of Rs.3,66,000/- to the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply to the complaint filed by OP number 2, it is stated that the OP number 2 arranged only auction of the vehicles through its portal.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-33 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1  has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/2 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.  

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by purchasing a i20 car bearing registration number PB-05-T-0767 model 2015 through online auction conducted by OP number 2 and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,66,000/- for the vehicle in question being its cost which was paid online by the complainant. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased the car in question being 2015 model, but later on he came to know that the OP number 1 wrongly sold the car of 2011 model saying 2015 model.  When the complainant approached the OP number 1 for refund of the amount, the same was refunded after a long period.  Further grievance of the complainant is that though he spent an amount of Rs.57,000/- on its repairs, the same was not refunded by the complainant.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OP number 1 is deficient in service and has indulged in unfair trade practice by selling the wrong product by mentioning upper model of the vehicle.  On the other hand, it is admitted fact on the part of the OP number 1 that it was due to inadvertence and the OP number 1 when came to know about the wrong mention of the model, the amount of Rs.3,66,000/- was immediately refunded to the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that it was also the responsibility of the complainant to see the model of the car in question before getting it purchased and repaired.  Now, we feel that the ends of justice would be met, if the OP number 1 is directed to pay to the complainant compensation for mental agony, harassment caused by it to the complainant.

 

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant in part and direct the Op number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        March 12, 2018.

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member