Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/530/2018

Vikas Gogna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Anish Gautam Adv.

15 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	530 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	26.09.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	15.04.2019

 

 

 

 

 

Vikas Gogna s/o Sh.Gursharn Singh, Resident of House No.471, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh, and presently residing at Flat No.424, LB Enclave, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.   HaryaHarHar      

 

             …………….Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Maruti Suzuki India Limited, through its Managing Directors having registered address at Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi DL 110070 INDIA

 

2]  Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd., authorised Maruti Suzuki Dealer through its Managing Directors, Plot No.112-113, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.   

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

                    MR.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

           

 

Argued by :-

Sh.Mohit Singla, Advocate for complainant.

Opposite Party NO.1 exparte.

Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Adv. for Opposite Party No.2.

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

                    The case of the complainant is that he booked Maruti Vitara Breeza ZDI+AMT Car with Opposite Party No.2 on 26.5.2018 by making payment of Rs.11,000/- (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that Opposite Party No.2 had assured the complainant to deliver the booked car within eight weeks and as such, the complainant, on such assurance, sold his old car on 17.6.2018 (Ann.C-2).  It is stated that the complainant kept on waiting the delivery of booked car, but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver it within the assured time period of 8 weeks and ultimately delivered the vehicle only on 19.8.2018, which the complainant has taken under protest on making payment of Rs.10,26,715/-.  It is also stated that the complainant has also been charged an amount of Rs.10,267/- by the OPs on account of TCS charges for fast tag, but did not install the same in the vehicle so delivered to him.  It is submitted that the complainant has taken the delivery of the vehicle under protest on 19.8.2018 but the Opposite Party No.2 has issued the retail invoice, sale certificate and Form 22 of dated 17.8.2018. It is also submitted that the complainant has suffered huge loss of about Rs.2 lacs on account of non-delivery of booked vehicle in time.  Alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed. 

 

2]       Opposite Party NO.1 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence proceeded exparte vide order dated 15.11.2018.

 

         Opposite Party NO.2 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant has presented a fake booking form Ann.C-1 with complaint, whereas the coy of booking form duly signed by the complainant is annexed as Ann.R-2/2.  It is stated that the complainant has not got confirmed about the tentative delivery schedule.  It is stated that the Opposite Party No.2 was dependent about the supply of the vehicles on Opposite Party NO.1 and it is not the case where Opposite Party NO.2 could arrange the vehicle from the open market and deliver to the complainant. It is stated that neither the complainant has approached the Opposite Parties before 16.8.2018 in written nor there was any of such requirement in view of the fact that on receipt of the dispatch information of the vehicle from Opposite Party No.1, the representative of Opposite Party No.2 was to approach the complainant through SMS and other means of communication.  It is stated that the vehicle was received from Opposite Party No.1 by Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice dated 15.8.2018 and the complainant opted to take its delivery from Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice dated 17.8.2018.  It is correct that the delivery of the vehicle was offered on 16.8.2018 and the complainant opted to take its delivery on the date of his choice and without lodging any protest.  It is submitted that TCS charges is tax levied by Income Tax Department and in compliance to the provisions of Section 206 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with rule 37 D, the Opposite Party No.2 being under statutory obligation, collected the tax of Rs.10,267/- and deposited the same with the Income Tax Department (Ann.R-2/4).  It is also submitted that on filing of income tax returns, the complainant must had availed benefit of the said TCS but is misrepresenting the true facts.  It is stated that Fast Tag was installed in the vehicle and a sum of Rs.600/- were deposited in the fast tag (Ann.R-2/6).  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant filed replication reiterating the contentions made in the complaint.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and also carefully examined the entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The only vital issue involved in this matter is that the complainant booked car Breeza Zdi +AMT on 26/05/2018 with AUTOPACE NETWORK PVT LTD/OP—2 by payment of Rs.11000/- (Ann.R-2/2).          As per order booking/commitment checklist     dated 26.5 2018, the waiting period for delivery of car was assured to be of 8 weeks i.e. by 21/7/2018, however, the Opposite Party No.2, managed to arrange the car only on 16/08/2018 after delay of 25 days as is explicit from their email (Annexure C-4).

 

7]       As per contract of booking of car, the time i.e. delivery of car within 8 weeks, was the essence of the contract and as such any breach thereof in delivering the car within stipulated period would tantamount to  breach of contract. In anticipation of new car, the complainant sold his old car on 17/06/2018 (Annexure C-2).  In the absence of new car, which the complainant got only on 19/08/2018, he might have suffered great hardship and harassment in meeting out his day-to-day vehicle requirements.

 

8]       The Opposite Party No.2, the car dealer taking undue advantage of popular brand of the car, used to collect huge money from the prospective buyers by making false promises of early delivery of cars and use the money for their commercial gains and purposes.  They have no legal right to collect the money at the time of booking by promising delivery of car at early date when they could not stand to their words and fail to provide the cars to the intending buyers within the given time.  This is an unfair trade practice, which require to be snubbed.

 

9]       Keeping into consideration the facts as discussed above in preceding paragraphs, the complainant is allowed with directions to the Opposite Party No.2, to pay the complainant, a compensation of ₹50,000/- along with litigation expenses of ₹10,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

         The copy of this order be forwarded to the parties as per rules.

Announced

15^th April, 2019                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER