DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.109 of 05-03-2010 Decided on 14-10-2010
Sonika wife of Rajdeep Goel son of Sh.Shiv Kumar, resident of House No.2672, Court Road, Bengali Street, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Empire Auto Mobiles, H.O. 3029, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda through its Prop./Partner. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India (Pvt.) Ltd., Plot No1, Sector-3, IMT Manesar, District Gurgaon (Haryana) 122050, through its Managing Director.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Rajdeep Goyal, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.S.K.Sharma, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. In brief, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. The complainant booked one Honda Activa (Grey) after making the payment of Rs.1,000/- vide receipt No.1438 with opposite party No.1 on 27.11.2009. The complainant alleged that the opposite party No.1 promised to give the delivery of the vehicle within one week. The complainant and her husband visited many times to opposite party No.1 for enquiring about the delivery of the vehicle. The complainant alleged that the opposite party No.1 had been making false excuses that no stock was available from opposite party No.2. She requested the opposite party No.1 to get the stock register checked but the opposite party No.1 intentionally did not show the stock register and also failed to show the register regarding the receipt of stock of Honda Activa (Grey), regarding sale of the same on 27.11.2009 and also requested to provide the seniority list according to the booking of the customers but the opposite party No.1 did not supply the same to the complainant. She further alleged that the opposite party No.1 had been selling the vehicles to the persons who had booked the vehicles after the booking of the complainant, after receiving the huge amount in black and by breaking the seniority. She further alleged that the opposite party No.1 had supplied the Honda Activa to one Puneet Joshi who booked the same on 06.02.2010 i.e. much later to the complainant. Copy of the booking receipt No.2584 dated 06.02.2010 regarding booking by said Puneet Joshi, copy of receipt regarding payment of balance amount dated 19.02.2010, copy of sale certificate, Invoice, copy of Temporary certificate of registration issued to the aforesaid Puneet Joshi and pollution certificate and copy of insurance policy are enclosed alongwith complaint. She further alleged that the opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice by selling the vehicle to the persons after breaking the seniority by receiving black money which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint and prayed for supplying the Honda Activa (Grey) to the complainant; Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and Rs.3,300/- as cost of litigation expenses. 2. The opposite parties took many legal objections, one of the legal objection is that the complaint is pre-mature as the opposite party No.1 is ready and willing to handover the scooter to the complainant which she had booked with opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 never promised to give the delivery of the scooter within one week rather the complainant was informed that when Grey colour would available from the opposite party No.2, she would be informed on telephone and the same would be done according to her turn. The opposite parties have also denied that no application was moved by the complainant for checking the register of the opposite party No.1. The opposite parties pleaded that the Honda Activa which was delivered to Puneet Joshi, was of black colour and was supplied to him on his request dated 06.02.2010 as he requested for the black colour. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record placed on file. 5. Admitted facts of both the parties are that the complainant booked one Honda Activa (Grey) after paying Rs.1,000/- on 27.11.2009 vide booking receipt No.1438 with opposite party No.1. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the opposite party No.1 has not given the delivery of the vehicle to the complainant rather the opposite party No.1 has given the delivery of the vehicle to one Puneet Joshi who had booked the vehicle approximately after two months from the complainant. To support her version, the complainant has placed on file Ex.C-4 receipt of Rs.1,000/-, Ex.C-5 dated 19.02.2010 receipt No.2961 for Rs.45,150/- paid by Puneet Joshi for his vehicle and Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 are the documents related to Puneet Joshi. 6. The learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that they have not promised to the complainant to give the delivery of vehicle within one week as it was subject to the delivery of lot from the opposite party No.2. He further submitted that no Grey colour scooter was delivered to anyone before the complainant, the scooter delivered to one Puneet Joshi was of black colour. Hence, they have not broken the seniority or has taken black money from any of the customers to deliver the Honda Activa. 7. The complainant in her complaint as well as in her affidavit has mentioned that she wanted to purchase Honda Activa (Grey) which was not available with opposite party No.1, so she booked the same after paying Rs.1,000/-. She has deposed in her affidavit that the opposite parties have never requested the complainant to take delivery as alleged in reply as well as in letter dated 15.03.2010. A letter dated 15.03.2010 was sent to the complainant after filing the present complaint. The opposite parties have moved an application dated 03.06.2010 for seeking directions from the Consumer Forum to direct the complainant to take the delivery of Honda Activa Simple as it was available with them. The complainant has also moved an application on 09.06.2010 in which, she has mentioned that she had already purchased Honda Activa from some other Automobile Dealer, for this she has also attached the Sale certificate of 18.05.2010 alongwith this application. This shows that the complainant has purchased Honda Activa from some other place. So, the prayer in her complaint for seeking directions to the opposite parties to make the supply of Honda Activa has become infractuious. The Sale certificate which has been attached with reply to the application dated 03.06.2010 shows that the complainant had already purchased Honda Activa on 18.05.2010. Now, her case is remained for compensation and litigation expenses. With regard to this, the complainant has not placed on file any record or documents to show that the opposite parties have broken the seniority list or they have given the delivery of Honda Activa (Grey) to any other persons. She is relying upon the evidence led by her regarding one Puneet Joshi. The case of the Puneet Joshi is altogether different as he has opted for Honda Activa (Black) which was available with the opposite parties at the time of purchase whereas Honda Activa (Grey) was not available with the opposite parties and stock was to be delivered from the opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer. Moreover, there is no evidence placed on file to show that the opposite parties have promised to handover the delivery of the vehicle within one week. During arguments, the complainant has asked whether she wanted to take the delivery of the vehicle, she submitted that she will take the delivery of the vehicle and the opposite parties have intimated the Forum that the Honda Activa (Grey) has been arrived on 04.10.2010 and they are ready to handover the Honda Activa (Grey) to the complainant but the complainant refused to take the delivery. Hence, there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 14.10.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
