Delhi

North East

CC/78/2018

Pallavi Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.78/18

In the matter of:

 

	Ms. Pallavi Sharma, D/o Shri Manish Oberoi, C/o Shri Manish Oberoi, R/o D-151, Ground Floor, Jhilmil, East Delhi, Delhi 110095	Complainant
	Versus
	Himgiri Hyundai Showroom & Workshop, A-9/1, JhilmilIndl. Area, New Delhi 110092	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

01.05.2018 24.05.2023 30.10.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant was having a Wagon R car bearing registration no. UP 14 CL5663. Complainant came in contact with the Opposite Party to purchase a new X-cent car and Opposite Party assured the Complainant to give good return on her exchange with old car. After that the Complainant handed over her old Wagon R car to the Opposite Party under the exchange scheme to get X-cent base 1.2.The total cost of the new X-cent car was Rs. 5,71,346/-.  Complainant booked the X-cent car by paying a booking amount of Rs. 20,000/-. It is her case that Opposite Party valued the old car for a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/- and Opposite Party also give an offer of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant. It is her case that a representative of the Opposite Party issued a receipt and told that Rs. 2,95,000/- should be given directly to the financer bank. On 03.04.2016, the Complainant gave an additional amount of Rs. 43,000/- for the further payment along with Rs. 2,95,000/- and accordingly Rs. 3,27,934/- as well as Rs. 154/- was deposited in the HDFC bank on 01.06.2016. After completing all the formalities when the Complainant went to receive new car then representative of the Opposite Party refused to give bonus of Rs. 25,000/- and also informed that the cost of the vehicle had been increased to Rs. 6,38,398/-. It is her case that Opposite Party refused to deliver the new car at the price of Rs. 5,71,346/-. After that the Complainant requested Opposite Party to deliver the new car for a sum of Rs. 5,71,346/- or return back her old car as well as Rs. 20,000/-. In the meanwhile, Complainant came to know that the Opposite Party had sold the old car to someone else. After that the Complainant received a call from the Opposite Party to visit and meet at the office of Opposite Party. It is her case that Opposite Party asked to pay Rs. 56,000/- towards loan amount and only then they would delivered the vehicle@ Rs. 5,71,346/- by 20.10.2016 and on believing Complainant paidRs. 56,000/- to Opposite Party. Complainant visited the showroom of the Opposite Party to receive the new car but Opposite Party made one excuseor the other and till date Opposite Party has failed to deliver the new car. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 5,000/- as remaining booking amount, Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation expense. Complainant also prayed for Rs.50,000/-as compensation.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-pate vide order dated18.10.2018.An application to set aside the ex-parte order was allowed by the Hon’ble State Commissionvide order dated 15.04.2019. Thereafter,the Opposite Party filed its written statement. It is stated thatthe complaint is not maintainable as there is no negligence or any deficiency in the service on the part of Opposite Party. It is stated that the Complainant had booked the car with the Opposite Party and later on she cancelled the booking. The Complainant has received the booking amount on 13.10.2016. It is stated that the complaint is time barred. It is statedthat the Complainant had handed over her Wagon R Car to the Opposite Party in exchange of agreed consideration. The Complainant received the consideration amount from the Opposite Party and executed the necessary documents for transfer of ownership of the said Wagon R car. It is stated that the Complainant had paid Rs. 20,000/- towards the booking of the carand the Complainant could not make thebalance payment of the car even after five six months of the booking. After that the Complainant cancelled her booking and she was refunded Rs. 15,000/- after deducting the cancellationcharges. Theallegations made in the complaint are denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Mr. Rajendra Kumar Tomar,wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the AR for theComplainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that she had booked a Hyundai X-cent car with the Opposite Party and had paid Rs. 20,000/- as booking amount. Admittedly, the Complainant has given her old Wagon R car to the Opposite Party under the exchange scheme. Admittedly, the Complainant has received the sale consideration from the Opposite Party in respect of her old Wagon R car. The case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant has signed the relevant documents for transfer of her old WagonR car. The said car was transferred in the name of the person who had purchased the said car.It is not the case of the Complainant that she did not signed the documents for transfer of the car nor it is her case that she did not receive the consideration amount of her old Wagon R car.It is important to note that the Opposite Party in para no. 10 of its written statement(preliminaryobjections) has very categorically stated that the said facts. The Complainant in her rejoinder has given the reply to the said para which is as under “That the contents of para 10 of the preliminary objections of the reply filed by the respondent needs no rejoinder.” This is a vague reply. It is also important to note that the Complainant nor led any evidence in this regard.Therefore, it is proved that the Complainant has received the sale consideration of her old Wagon R car and signed the transferred documents of the said car.
7. The case of the Complainant is that she had booked the HyundaiX-cent car and paid Rs. 20,000/- as bookingamount. In her complaint, she did not mention that she had got refund of the booking amount. On the other hand, in the written statement, the Opposite Party has stated that after deductingRs. 5,000/- of the booking amount the Complainant was refunded back Rs. 15,000/- of the booking amount when she requested for cancellation of the booking of the car.It is important to note that in para no. 6 of its written statement(preliminary objections), the Opposite Party has stated that the Complainant had cancelled her booking. The reply filed in her rejoinder by the Complainant is that she has simply denied the assertion made by the Opposite Party in the said para.Nor the Complainant rebutted this assertion of the Opposite Party in her evidence by way of affidavit. The Complainant has not led any evidence that she was ready to make the remaining payment. Her case is that the car was being provided/sold to her at high rate. It isa well known fact that the rate on which the car is sold are the rates which are prevailing at the time of sale and not at the time of booking.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 30.10.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)