THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PAPUM PARE DSITRICT, YUPIA

ARUNACHAL PRADESH

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. CA(PP)-02/20

Shri Mogam Ete, S/o Shri Hormo Ete, R/o Model village, Naharlagun PO/PS-Naharlagun, District Papum Pare (AP)

…………Complainant

-Versus-

1. Managing Director M/S ITA FORD, Lekhi

PO/PS-Nirjul                              

2. Shri Anup Baruah, General Manager Regional Office (pnb Medlife) 48/1A, Gariahat Road, M/S ITA FORD, Leekhi PO/PS-Noirjuli, District Papum Pare (AP)

…………..Respondents

QUORUM:             Mr. GOTE MEGA, PRESIDENT 

MR. TARH LOMA, MEMBER

MISS DEEPA YOKA, MEMBER

ADVOCATE APPEARED:

For the Complainant                         : Mr. M. Tanga

For the Opposite Party No. 1             : Mr. B Tapa        

For the Opposite No. 2                     :  Ex-Parte

Date of Hearing                               : 26.08.2022

Date of Judgment                            : 28.10.2022

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER

1. The instant Complaint petition is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection act 1986 (in short, Act) with a prayer for awarding the complainant a sum of Rs. 12, 07, 000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs Seven Thousand only) from the Opposite Party No. 1 (in short O.P No. 1), on the ground of willful deficiency of service to the complainant.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had booked a vehicle Ford Freestyle Titanium by paying a booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the dealership of M/s ITA FORD, Lekhi (O.P No.1) on 29.07.2019. On the instruction of O.P No. 2, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 3, 90, 000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Thousand only) in the bank account of O.P No. 1 as provided by the O.P No.2 with money Receipt dated 20.09.2019 as acknowledgement of payment.

3. The Complainant also stated that after the promised date of delivery, the vehicle was not delivered to him and it was subsequently extended from time to time. Therefore, complainant was compelled to purchase a vehicle from Guwahati dealership by incurring additional costs and hardship. Accordingly, after purchasing the vehicle from Guwahati, the Complainant approached the O.P No. 1 for refunding his vehicle booking amount of Rs. 10, 000/- and down payment of Rs. 3, 90, 000/-. However, the O.P No. 1 has refunded the only the booking amount and refused to return the amount down payment stating that they have never received any down payment in their dealer’s account.

4. Thereafter, the complainant has approached several times to O.P No 1 for refunding the down payment but the OP No. 1 did not return the same. Therefore, the complainant having no other alternative way out he sent a legal notice through his lawyer vide legal notice dated 02.12.2019 to the O.P No. 1 (which is annexed as Annexure-4 Series in the complaint petition) demanding refunding the said amount. O.P No. 1 denied the same and stated that O.P No. 2 was not authorized to receive any payments in the name of the O.P No.1. Hence this complainant petition before this commission.

5. The O.P No. 1 contested the case by filling his/their Written Statement (ws) wherein O.P No. 1 has admitted that the booking charge deposited by the complainant has been returned to him. Further, the O.P No 1 admitted that the O.P No 2 had duped the complainant and an FIR dated 06.12.2019 has also been lodged against the O.P No. 2. However, the O.P No. 1 has denied other statement made by the complainant regarding payment of Rs. 3, 90, 000/- in their account and stated that it was done between the complainant and the O.P No. 2. That despite several notices none appeared for the OP No. 2. Hence this Commission has decided to proceed ex-parte against the O.P No. 2 and accordingly final hearing was fixed on 26.08.2022.

6. During final hearing on the matter, none appeared for the contesting Opposite party but in the interest of justice this commission has given sufficient time to him and even fresh steps were taken up through the complainant but neither the O.P No.1 nor his counsel appeared before this commission for final hearing. Meanwhile, as mandated by the Consumer rules 1987, the complainant has filed the written argument and proceeded ex-parte in absence of the O.P No. 1

7. Heard Mr. M. Tanga, learned counsel for the complainant. He submitted that complainant booked a vehicle namely, Ford Freestyle Titanium, by paying a booking amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only from the dealership of M/S ITA FORD, Lekhi (O.P No.1) on 29.07.2019. subsequently, on the instruction of the Opposite party No. 2, he has deposited a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Thousand) only in the account of the O.P No.1 as down payment and a money receipt thereof of was dully acknowledged vide Money receipt dated 20.09.2022 (Annexed as annexure- 2& 3 in the complaint petition).

8. The complainant after depositing the aforesaid down payment amount was expecting delivery of vehicle in the first week of October 2019 but the same was not delivered on time. The complainant made several request for refund of the money paid by for the aforesaid vehicle but the O.P No. 1 refused to listen or gave any reason for their stand. Having no other alternatives, the complainant was compelled to serve legal notice dated 02.12.2019 and through the reply of this legal notice, O.P No. 1 informed that the O.P No 2 has cheated him and any liability on the part of the O.P No1 was denied.

9. The counsel for the complainant has also submitted that the O.P No. 1 is vicariously liable for the act of the O.P No. 2 as the O.P No. 1 has not denied that the O.P No. 2 was under the unemployment of the O.P No. 1 during the period when the transaction was done. As such, the O.P No. 1 is liable to refund the amount deposited as down payment of the aforesaid vehicle.

10. The counsel for the complainant submits and prayed this commission that the O.P No. 1 may be directed to pay as follows: -

1. To refund the amount paid as down payment Rs. 3,90,000/-
2. Amount of interest @ 10% per month for three months Rs. 1,17,000/-
3. For Gross deficiency of service caused to the complainant Rs. 3,00,000/-
4. For loss of valuable time and business hours Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. For mental Agony and harassment Rs. 2,00,000/
6. Punitive damages Rs. 2,00,000/-
7. For unnecessary expenditure occasioned to the complainant Rs. 50,000/-
8. For cost of Litigation Rs. 50,000/-

11. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the complainant, we have carefully and cautiously perused the documents accompanying the compliant petition. As stated above both the opposite parties did not contest the case. OP No. 1 did not contest the case. In such circumstances, this Commission finds no reasons to disbelieve the contention and submission put forward by the counsel for the complainant as the same is supported by documents. Hence this Commission is of considered view that there is clear case of deficiency in service caused to the complainant by the O.P. No 1 & 2.
12. Be it as may be, this commission also feels that though the case has not been contested by the Opposite party we cannot blindly allow in toto, the quantum of compensation claimed by the complainant.
13. In view of the above, this Commission direct the O.P No.1 to pay as under:-

1. To refund Rs. 3,90,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Thousand).
2. For Gross deficiency of service caused to the complainant   Rs. 1,50,000/-
3. For mental Agony and harassment Rs. 50, 000/

Total: 6,40,000/-

(Rupees Six Lakhs forty Thousand) only

14. The O.P No. 1 is directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order copy failing, which an interest @6% per annum shall be charged till realization of the award.
15. The case stands disposed of ex-parte.

(Miss Deepa Yoka)                                    (Mr. Tarh Loma)

Member                                          Member

                                (Mr. Gote Mega)  

President