Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 675.

                                                                    Instituted on     : 29.11.2017.

                                                                    Decided on       : 07.08.2019.

Rajiv son of Sh. Zile Singh, age 47 years, Resident of House                  No. 1123, Sector-3, Rohtak.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. Jag Mohan Motors Ltd., HO: Sonipat Road, Rohtak – 124001, through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory/Principle Officer.

2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Sector-18, Old Palam Road, Gurgaon- 122001 (Car Manufacturer) through its Managing Director.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Y.S. Dalal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Mrs. Chetna, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.

                   Opposite party No. 2 already exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2017, the complainant booked a new Vehicle/Maruti Vitara Brezza VDI (0)/Met Granite Grey with the respondent No.1 and deposited the booking amount of Rs.21,000/- as per the demand of respondent. The respondent issued proper receipt voucher bearing No. REC17001160 dated 03.06.2017. That in the first week of the October, 2017, complainant received a telephonic call from the representative of the respondent No. 1 that the respondent No. 1 is in the position to give the delivery of the aforesaid vehicle to the complainant. So, the complainant has to deposit the rest of amount of the price of the vehicle to get the delivery. That after receiving the said message, the complainant has availed car loan facility from the Central Bank of India, Rohtak for the vehicle in question. As per the demand of the respondents, the complainant deposited further remaining amount of the said vehicle Rs.8,61,800/- to the respondent No.1 on dated 11.10.2017 vide receipt No. REC173003511. The bank who has provided the loan facility to the complainant is charging 8.70% interest per month on the loan amount. That despite repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, the respondents did not supply the new vehicle within time to the complainant. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to supply/hand over the delivery of booked new vehicle to the complainant without any delay and also to pay interest @ 8.70% per month of loan amount against the said vehicle from the date of deposit till actual delivery of said vehicle to the complainant, beside compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that the complainant changed his mind and accordingly, on his own request, the booking was cancelled as the complainant made it clear that he is unable to purchase the car due to family problem. The booking cancellation form is bearing the signature of complainant. It is further submitted that the amount paid by the complainant has already been refunded and the same has been deposited with the bank and complainant. The amount of Rs. 21,000/- was refunded to the complainant and the remaining amount was deposited with the concerned bank from whom the complainant availed the loan. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party No. 1.

3.                Notice issued to opposite party No. 2 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence, opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.01.2018 passed by this Forum. However, reply on behalf of opposite party No. 2 received by speed post on dated 23.01.2018 in which opposite party No. 2 is submitted that transaction of booking/sale of the vehicle in question was between the complainant and opposite party No. 1 to which the answering opposite party was not privy. It is further submitted that no communication took place between the complainant and the answering opposite party. It is further submitted that the complainant has neither paid any alleged amount to the answering opposite party nor has the answering opposite party given any assurance of any kind with regard to the vehicle in question to the complainant. It is also submitted that the opposite party No. 1 is a separate and independent legal entity and the opposite party No. 2 is not responsible for any acts or omissions on the part of opposite party No. 1. It is further submitted that the complainant has not paid any alleged amount to the answering opposite party and no cause of action arose against the opposite party No. 2. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party No. 2.

4.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 06.06.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A and documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-8 and has closed his evidence on dated 25.09.2018 and also filed Annexure-  JN-A to Annexure-JN-E” at the time of arguments.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case car was booked by the complainant on 03.06.2017 through respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 taken an amount of Rs.21000/- as booking amount on 03.06.2017 and thereafter loan amount of Rs.780000/- was sanctioned by the Central Bank of India on dated 10.10.2017.  On 11.10.2017, the amount of Rs.882000/- was credited in the account of Jagmohan motors by the complainant. Meaning thereby, an amount of Rs.882000/- has been paid to the respondent no.1 on dated 11.10.2017 but car has not been given to the complainant by the respondent No.1. That on 04.12.2017 the alleged amount was refunded by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant without any interest.

7.                          In the present case, the main contention of the complainant is that he booked a car Model Maruti Vitara Brezza VDI(0) Met. Granite Grey with the respondent no.1 but the alleged colour was not available with the opposite party. So it was not delivered to the complainant. It is further contended that he had paid an amount of Rs.790830/- against the loan amount of Rs.780000/- to the bank. To prove this fact, he has placed on record document Annexure JN-C. Meaning thereby, he paid an amount of Rs.10830/- as interest to the bank but on the other hand, opposite party No.1 has refunded the amount without any interest, due to which he suffered a loss of Rs.10830/- on account of interest and also suffered mental agony and harassment due to non delivery of vehicle by the opposite party.  On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the respondent is that the booking was cancelled by the customer itself and has placed reliance upon the document Ex.D1. 

8.                          Perusal of the alleged document placed on record by the respondent itself shows that no date is mentioned on this document. Moreover, during the period from 14.02.2017 to 03.06.2017, the respondent no.1 had booked 11 cars which is proved from the document Ex.D3 and respondent only received 6 cars upto 02.09.2017. The opposite party should not have done the excess bookings, if the cars were not available with the manufacturer. The respondent no.1 has not provided the services to the complainant and has utilized the booking amount of the complainant for 6 months and remaining amount for 2 months and had refunded the amount of complainant without any interest. Whereas, the bank has charged interest of Rs.10831/- from the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

9.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party No.1 shall refund the amount of Rs.10831/-(Rupees ten thousand eight hundred and thirty one only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of making payment by the bank i.e. 11.10.2017 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.15000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses  to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the amount of compensation Rs.15000/- from the date of order till its realisaton.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.

10.                       Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

07.08.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …………………………………

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………..

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.