Haryana

Kurukshetra

19/2017

Bhanu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kanav Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Chopra

04 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint case no.19 of 2017.

Date of instt. 23.01.17. 

                                                                   Date of Decision: 04.12.2018.

Bhanu daughter of Harish Wadhwa, resident of Sivan, District Kaithal.

                                                ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Kanv Motors Private Limited, through its Sales Manager, Gaurav care of Pearls Fords, Kurukshetra.
2. Gaurav, Sales Manager, Kanav Motors Private Limited, care of Pearal Fords, Kurukshetra.
3. Vimmi Bakshi care of Pearl Fords, Kurukshetra.

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

Before:               Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                        Ms. Neelam, Member.

                        Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:             Sh.  Parveen Chopra, Adv. for complainant.           

     Sh. Mohit Tayal, Adv. for Op No.1.

                Ops No.2 & 3 given up.

           

ORDER     

                         This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Bhanu against Kanav Motors & others, the opposite parties.

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant booked a car make Ecosport Ambietc D/W, colour Diamond White of Petrol Version on 14.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.6,80,000/-with B.T.B. insurance and body cover, whereas the exchange documents were to be delivered at the time of delivery i.e. on 20.02.2016.  It is alleged that the above-said car was booked with the Ops at Kurukshetra for the marriage of complainant which was to be performed on 22.02.2016 and the complainant paid the advance amount of Rs.11,000/- to the Ops vide an agreement bearing No.1946.  It is further alleged that instead of delivery of car to the complainant on 20.02.2016, the Ops sent a letter dt. 16.02.2016 to the complainant to the effect that “MAAM due to some problem, we are not able to delivery the car on promise time committed to you”.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops several time to fulfill the agreement dt. 14.02.2016 but the Ops showed their inability to delivery the car.  It is further alleged that just to save the skin before the society, the complainant and her family members were compelled to purchase a Diesel Version Car from Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd., Karnal for a sum of Rs.7,95,000/- vide invoice No.VSCF13216KN.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for not delivery the car and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and to refund Rs.11,000/- deposited with the Ops and to pay Rs.1,15,000/- paid as excessive amount by the complainant to the Ops and further to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Forum, whereas Ops No.2 & 3 were given up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide separate statement recorded on 03.03.2017.  Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; cause of action; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the present complaint is not maintainable because the complainant has no case as no documentary proof has been placed on the file and as such, the complaint be dismissed with costs; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The counsel of complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-15 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the counsel of Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant agreed to purchase a car make Eco Sport Ambietc D/W, colour Diamond White of Petrol Version on 14.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.6,80,000/-with B.T.B. insurance and body cover, copy of booking is Ex.C1 in which it is clearly mentioned the date of delivery as 20.02.2016 on the bottom of Ex.C1.  The Op No.1 has taken Rs.11,000/- for booking amount of that vehicle.  It was booked by the complainant for the marriage of complainant which was to be performed on 22.02.2016 but on 17.02.2016, the Op sent an e-mail, Annexure-C2 to the complainant regarding non-availability of booking car in the showroom.  On 17.02.2016 the complainant went to the office of Op No.1 and requested for delivery of above-mentioned vehicle but the Op No.1 has refused to give that vehicle and denied to give the booking amount which was received by the Op No.1.  So, after denial of the Op, the complainant had to purchase another vehicle of diesel version ECO sports.  The booking amount of that vehicle is Annexure-C4 in which Rs.10,000/- were paid to Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd., Karnal for new ECO Sports diesel version and Annexure C-5 is receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- given to Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd., Karnal regarding purchase of ECO Sports diesel version.  The rate of that vehicle is Rs.7,95,000/- and rate of ECO spot petrol version is Rs.6,80,000/-.  He further contended that the complainant had to pay the excess amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for another vehicle of ECO Sports diesel version.  Counsel of the complainant further contended that it is a gross negligence on the part of Op by not giving the booking amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant. 

8.             On the other hand, the counsel of the Op No.1 admitted that the booking amount of Rs.11,000/- was given by the complainant but due to non-availability of vehicle ECO spot petrol version, the complainant has given due notice to the complainant in time.  It is admitted by the counsel of Op No.1 that the booking amount is not given by the company to the complainant.

9.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of submissions of both the parties, we find weight in the submissions of counsel for the complainant.  We can rely upon the authority titled as Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, bearing civil appeal No.6237 of 1990, date of decision: 05.11.1993 (SC), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court “Consumer Protection-Promoting welfare of Society-Act is Social benefit oriented legislation-Removing helplessness of consumer in Society where producers have secured power-Provisions of Act should be construed in favour of consumer-Milestone in socio economic legislation history and is directed to achieve public benefit”.  So, keeping in view the ratio applied by Hon’ble Apex Court in the said authority and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Op No.1 has adopted the act of unfair trade practice and there is gross deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint against Op No.1 and direct the Op No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.11,000/- as booking amount to the complainant and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony.  The Op No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant as  litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance. 

Announced:    

Dt.04.12.2018.                                             (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.