Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that her father booked a car Vitara Breeza vdi Silver Colour in the month of December, 2017 i.e. on 16.12.2017 in the name of complainant  as the marriage of the complainant  had to be solemnize on 6^th February, 2018. Further alleges that on 16.12.2017 complainant paid a pre-booking amount as demanded by opposite party no.2 and 3 on behalf of opposite party no.1 with the saying that approximately 1-1/2 months waiting of the above said car is going on, but they will assured that their problem is genuine one, so they will deliver the said car to the father of complainant on or before 6^th February, 2018 for giving the same to the complainant in her marriage. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 at that time also received Rs.21,000/- as an pre-booking amount of said car Vitara Breeza from the father of complainant and issued a receipt in this respect in the name of complainant, as the vehicle was booked in the name of complainant. Further alleges that thereafter father of complainant also prepared a quotation from the officers of opposite party no.2 for the purpose of bank loan which was duly made by opposite party no.2 on his letter head. That thereafter complainant and her father became busy in the arrangements of the marriage, but at the end of the month of January the complainant received a call from the officers of opposite party no.2 that they can not deliver the car as agreed above to they upto 6^th February 2018, with a ulterior motive. That after receiving the call complainant got shock that the marriage is going to be performed on 6^th February, 2018 and requested the said officer that now on 28-01-2018 they told me this time that they cannot deliver the car to  the complainant upto 6^th February 2018, it is bad on their part and their services are deficient one. When complainant objected to the same then the said officers said that they came tomorrow in our agency at Moga and take back their pre-booking amount from the complainant. That on the next day the complainant along-with her father and two/three relatives came at Moga in the showroom of opposite party no.2 and requested them to please hand over the vehicle upto 6^th February 2018 on the receipt of remaining payment and also requested that in case they not deliver the vehicle (car) Vitara Breeza upto 6^th February 2018 it will injure the reputation of complainant in the matrimonial house and also it will injure the reputation of my father and also requested that they had assured to us that they will deliver the same upto 6^th February 2018. Upon this the officers of opposite party no.2 on the instigation of opposite party no.3 said that if they want the car Vitara Breeza on time then they have to pay extra amount, but when complainant and her father denied and said that they have booked the car one and half month ago and also paid the pre-booking amount and they also assured to deliver the same on or before 06-02-2018, so now they can not demand extra money from us and complainant also said that it seems that they have already deliver our booked car to someone else by receiving extra money. On hearing this, the opposite party no.2 become annoyed and instead of consider the request of complainant and their relatives, issued a cheuqe of Rs.21,000/- Dt.29.01.2018 in favour of complainant and said that they can do whatever they want to do and also take back the booking receipt from the complainant with the saying that otherwise they will not return the pre-booking amount. Thereafter to save the reputation before the relatives, father of complainant immediately on the same day again booked the car in the name of complainant before the authorized service centre i.e. Mapsko Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and they made an estimate on 29-01-2018 for an amount of Rs.9,30,697/- and also demanded Rs.2,00,000/- extra for giving the immediate delivery upto 6^th February 2018 with the saying that they are not in a queue of waiting of 1-1/2 month  and under a compulsion and pressure father of complainant agreed to pay Rs.2 Lac extra to them only to save the reputation of the family in the eyes of relative and in-laws family of complainant. The complainant also paid Rs.21,000/- pre-booking amount and Rs.2 Lac extra to them and in this regard they have also issued a receipt Dt.30-01-2018. Copy of estimate Dt.29-1-2018 and receipt Dt.30-01-2018 is attached herewith as annexure-A2 and annexure-A3.That thereafter father of complainant took the delivery of Vitara Breeza Car from the Faridkot Agency and gave it to the complainant in her marriage which was solemnized on 6^th February 2018. Copy of marriage card and invoice Dt.30-01-2018 are also attached herewith as annexure-A4 and annexure-A5. It is also pertinent to mention here that the cheuqe of Rs.21,000/- regarding the pre-booking amount issued by opposite parties no.2 and 3 to the complainant was also dishonoured and in this regard a separate complaint U/s;138 of N.I.Act is also pending at Jalalabad Courts against the opposite parties no.2 & 3. Photocopy of cheuqe and memo are attached herewith as annexure-A6 and annexure-A7. In the above mentioned manner, the opposite parties rendered deficient services and also indulged in mal practices by making fool to the innocent persons and compelling the innocent persons including the complainant to pay excess amount which was only given due to the negligence and deficiency of opposite parties. So, due to the said deficiency in services the opposite parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.2 Lac to the complainant, paid by her to the Maruti Suzuki Agency at Faridkot under a compulsion or to take the delivery of the car in a short time for giving the same to the in-laws family of complainant. The complainant visited a number of times to the Branch Office of opposite party no.2 and 3 at Moga and also approached the opposite party no.1 head office of Maruti Suzuki for settling the matter, but of no use. Due to the aforesaid act and conduct and deficiency in service of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and financial loss. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

1. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two Lac) excess has been paid under force by the father of complainant due to the negligence and mal practices and deficiency in service of opposite parties, to Mapsko Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealer, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot for purchasing the car Maruti Vitara Breeza Vdi (O) for her daughter i.e. complainant for her marriage purpose which had to be solemnized on 6^th February 2018, to deliver the same in a short span of time, after the refusal of opposite parties on 29-01-2018.      
2. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by complainant at the hands of opposite parties, to the complainant, jointly and severally.
3. An amount of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.  
4. Or any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit be also granted to the complainant in the facts and circumstances mentioned above. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and hence the Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.07.2018 of this District Consumer Commission.

3.       Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint. Moreover, the lengthy examination-in-chief and  cross examination of the parties/ witnesses are required in the complaint, so the complaint requires to be decided by the Civil Court and as such, this District Consumer Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and  dispose off the present complaint. The true facts are that on 16.12.2017 the complainant came to the showroom of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and booked one Maruti Suzuki Vitara Breeza Vdi (O) and paid the booking amount of Rs.21,000/-, but no commitment was ever given to deliver the booked vehicle to the complainant in the month of February, 2018 but only a tentative delivery date (not confirmed) 16^th March, 2018 was mentioned in the booking order, but the complainant has concocted a false story that the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have promised to deliver the vehicle on or before 6th February, 2018. Moreover, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  have no knowledge about the marriage  of the complainant.  Actually, the complainant had already planned to purchase the vehicle from Mapsko Auto Pvt.Ltd. Faridkot and cancel the booking made by her. On 29.01.2018 the complainant came to cancel the booking made by her and demanded the booking amount refunded to her. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 immediately issued a cheque No.000162 dated 29.01.2018 of HDFC Bank in favour of the complainant. However, the same got dishonoured due to insufficient funds’ in the account which happened due to the  inadvertence on part of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, but there was no malafide intention of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, therefore on the receipt of notice of Sh.Neetin Kumar Midha, Advocate, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 sent a demand draft of Punjab and Sind Bank for an amount of Rs.21,840/- (including the interest w.e.f. 29.01.2018 upto date) through courier DTDC. It amply clear that the whole story has been concocted by the complainant just to black mail the Opposite Parties. Further submitted that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have no knowledge about the purchase of any car in the name of complainant from Mapsko Auto India Private Limited and also no knowledge about the demand of Rs.2 lakhs for the said car by Mapsko Auto India Private Limited. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 deny all such allegations against Mapsko Auto for want of knowledge and proof.   On merits, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 took up almost same and similar plea as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.       To prove her case, complainant alongwith the complaint placed on record her affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8.  

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the allegations of the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  alongwith their reply attached the affidavit Ex.Ops1,2/1 and self attested copies of documents Ex.Ops2,3/2 to Ex.Ops2,3/11

6.       We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as narrated in the complaint and contended that first of all, the written version  filed on behalf of the Opposite Party  has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. On merits, it is contended that  the  father of the complainant  booked a car Vitara Breeza vdi Silver Colour in the month of December, 2017 i.e. on 16.12.2017 in the name of complainant  as the marriage of the complainant  had to be solemnize on 6^th February, 2018. Further alleges that on 16.12.2017  complainant paid a pre-booking amount as demanded by opposite party no.2 and 3 on behalf of opposite party no.1 with the saying that approximately 1-1/2 months waiting of the above said car is going on, but they will assured that their problem is genuine one, so they will deliver the said car to the father of complainant on or before 6^th February, 2018 for giving the same to the complainant in her marriage. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 at that time also received Rs.21,000/- as an pre-booking amount of said car Vitara Breeza from the father of complainant and issued a receipt in this respect in the name of complainant, as the vehicle was booked in the name of complainant. Further contended that thereafter father of complainant also prepared a quotation from the officers of opposite party no.2 for the purpose of bank loan which was duly made by opposite party no.2 on his letter head. That thereafter complainant and her father became busy in the arrangements of the marriage, but at the end of the month of January the complainant received a call from the officers of opposite party no.2 that they can not deliver the car as agreed above to they upto 6^th February 2018, with a ulterior motive. That after receiving the call complainant got shock that the marriage is going to be performed on 6^th February, 2018 and requested the said officer that now on 28-01-2018 they told me this time that they cannot deliver the car to the complainant upto 6^th February 2018, it is bad on their part and their services are deficient one. When complainant objected to the same then the said officers said that they came tomorrow in our agency at Moga and take back their pre-booking amount from the complainant. That on the next day the complainant along-with her father and two/three relatives came at Moga in the showroom of opposite party no.2 and requested them to please hand over the vehicle upto 6^th February 2018 on the receipt of remaining payment and also requested that in case they not deliver the vehicle (car) Vitara Breeza upto 6^th February 2018 it will injure the reputation of complainant in the matrimonial house and also it will injure the reputation of my father and also requested that they had assured to us that they will deliver the same upto 6^th February 2018. Upon this the officers of opposite party no.2 on the instigation of opposite party no.3 said that if they want the car Vitara Breeza on time then they have to pay extra amount, but when complainant and her father denied and said that they have booked the car one and half month ago and also paid the pre-booking amount and they also assured to deliver the same on or before 06-02-2018, so now they can not demand extra money from us and complainant also said that it seems that they have already deliver our booked car to someone else by receiving extra money. On hearing this, the opposite party no.2 become annoyed and instead of consider the request of complainant and their relatives, issued a cheque of Rs.21,000/- Dt.29.01.2018 in favour of complainant and said that they can do whatever they want to do and also take back the booking receipt from the complainant with the saying that otherwise they will not return the pre-booking amount.           That thereafter to save the reputation before the relatives, father of complainant immediately on the same day again booked the car in the name of complainant before the authorized service centre i.e. Mapsko Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and they made an estimate on 29-01-2018 for an amount of Rs.9,30,697/- and also demanded Rs.2,00,000/- extra for giving the immediate delivery upto 6^th February 2018 with the saying that they are not in a queue of waiting of 1-1/2 month  and under a compulsion and pressure father of complainant agreed to pay Rs.2 Lac extra to them only to save the reputation of the family in the eyes of relative and in-laws family of complainant. The complainant also paid Rs.21,000/- pre-booking amount and Rs.2 Lac extra to them and in this regard they have also issued a receipt Dt.30-01-2018. Copy of estimate Dt.29-1-2018 and receipt Dt.30-01-2018 is attached herewith as annexure-A2 and annexure-A3.That thereafter father of complainant took the delivery of Vitara Breeza Car from the Faridkot Agency and gave it to the complainant in her marriage which was solemnized on 6^th February 2018. Copy of marriage card and invoice Dt.30-01-2018 are also attached herewith as annexure-A4 and annexure-A5. It is also pertinent to mention here that the cheque of Rs.21,000/- regarding the pre-booking amount issued by opposite parties no.2 and 3 to the complainant was also dishonoured and in this regard a separate complaint U/s;138 of N.I.Act is also pending at Jalalabad Courts against the opposite parties no.2 & 3. Photocopy of cheque and memo are attached herewith as annexure-A6 and annexure-A7. In the above mentioned manner, the opposite parties rendered deficient services and also indulged in mal practices by making fool to the innocent persons and compelling the innocent persons including the complainant to pay excess amount which was only given due to the negligence and deficiency of opposite parties. So, due to the said deficiency in services the opposite parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.2 Lac to the complainant, paid by her to the Maruti Suzuki Agency at Faridkot under a compulsion or to take the delivery of the car in a short time for giving the same to the in-laws family of complainant. The complainant visited a number of times to the Branch Office of opposite party no.2 and 3 at Moga and also approached the opposite party no.1 head office of Maruti Suzuki for settling the matter, but of no use. Due to the aforesaid act and conduct and deficiency in service of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and financial loss.

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that  the complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint. Moreover, the lengthy examination-in-chief and  cross examination of the parties/ witnesses are required in the complaint, so the complaint requires to be decided by the Civil Court and as such, this District Consumer Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and  dispose off the present complaint. The true facts are that on 16.12.2017 the complainant came to the showroom of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and booked one Maruti Suzuki Vitara Breeza Vdi (O) and paid the booking amount of Rs.21,000/-, but no commitment was ever given to deliver the booked vehicle to the complainant in the month of February, 2018 but only a tentative delivery date (not confirmed) 16^th March, 2018 was mentioned in the booking order, but the complainant has concocted a false story that the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have promised to deliver the vehicle on or before 6th February, 2018. Moreover, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  have no knowledge about the marriage  of the complainant.  Actually, the complainant had already planned to purchase the vehicle from Mapsko Auto Pvt.Ltd. Faridkot and cancel the booking made by her. On 29.01.2018 the complainant came to cancel the booking made by her and demanded the booking amount refunded to her. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 immediately issued a cheque No.000162 dated 29.01.2018 of HDFC Bank in favour of the complainant. However, the same got dishonoured due to ‘insufficient funds’ in the account which happened due to the  inadvertence on part of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, but there was no malafide intention of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, therefore on the receipt of notice of Sh.Neetin Kumar Midha, Advocate, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 sent a demand draft of Punjab and Sind Bank for an amount of Rs.21,840/- (including the interest w.e.f. 29.01.2018 upto date) through courier DTDC. It amply clear that the whole story has been concocted by the complainant just to black mail the Opposite Parties. Further submitted that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have no knowledge about the purchase of any car in the name of complainant from Mapsko Auto India Private Limited and also no knowledge about the demand of Rs.2 lakhs for the said car by Mapsko Auto India Private Limited. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 deny all such allegations against Mapsko Auto for want of knowledge and proof. 

9.       Perusal of the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant   shows  that  the written version  filed on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. The Opposite Party  is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given  to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party. In this regard,  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment (2011)II Supreme Court Cases 524 titled as “State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd.” and in para no.11 of the judgment,  has held that

“the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. On the plea that one authority letter dated 02.01.2003 was issued by Sh. R.K.Shukla in favour of Sh. A.K.Shukla. Further plaint failed to place on record its memorandum/articles to show that Sh. R.k.Shukla has been vested with the powers or had been given a general power of attorney on behalf of the Company to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the Company.”

Similar proposition came before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Nibro Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.”, 2 (2005) 5SCC 30 that the

“bear authority is not recognized under law and ultimately, it was held that the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. Here also appellant has not placed on record any resolution passed by any Board of Director in favour of Mr. Soonwon Kwon and that he was further authorised to delegate his power in favour of any other person. Further there is no memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Mr. Soonwon Kwon is one of the Director of the Company. In the absence of that evidence on record we cannot say that the special power of attorney given by Director Soonwon Kwon is a competent power of attorney issued in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh. In the absence of any resolution of the Company or any memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Sh. Soonwon Kwon is Director and that he was further authorised to issue power of attorney in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh.”

Recently our own Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in FAO No.1235 of 2015 decided on 25.01.2017 in case titled as L.G.Electronics India Private Limited Vs. Sita Ram Chaudhary also held that the plaint instituted by  an unauthorized person has no legal effect.

10.     For the sake of arguments, for the time being, if the written reply filed by Opposite Party is presumed to be correct, the next  plea  raised by Opposite Party  is that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure  under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court and this  District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. So far as the objection that complicated question of the fact is involved as such the Insured be relegated to go before Civil Court, is concerned, The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted with object to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers and for that purpose, to make provision for the establishment of consumer council and other authorities for settlement of consumer disputes and other matter connected therewith. Section 13 (4) confers same powers upon the authorities under the Act, which are vested in Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit in respect of (i) The summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath, (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence, (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits, (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test the appropriate laboratory or from other relevant source, (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed. The authorities are conferred jurisdiction to decide the issue of “unfair trade practice” which has been defined under Section 2 (r) of the Act. This definition is similar to the definition of “fraud” as given under Section 17 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. From these provisions it is clear that this Commission can hold a full trail as held by civil court or adopt summary procedure for decision of any complaint. Under the Act, although the jurisdiction of the authorities is limited to consumer complaint, but while deciding such complaint no limit has been fixed for adjudicating of the dispute. Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635, (paragraph-7) held that the object and purpose of the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumer with complaint against defective goods and deficient services and the benevolent piece of legislation, intended to protect a large body of consumer from exploitation. Consumer Forum is an alternate Forum, established under the Act, to discharge the function of Civil Court. Under the Act, the consumers are provided with an alternative efficacious and speedy remedy. As such the Consumer Forum is an alternative forum established under the Act to discharge the functions of Civil Court. Therefore, delay in disposal of the complaint would not be a ground for rejecting the complaint and directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The argument that the complicated question of fact cannot be decided by the Forum, has been specifically rejected (In paragraph-12). Similar view has been taken in Amar Jwala Paper Mills Vs. State Bank of India, (1998) 8 SCC 387, CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233. Recently, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in CC No. 101 of 2009 titled as mahalaxmi Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited decided on 07.09.2021 also held so.  Hence, this District Consumer Commission is  not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties.

11.     The further contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party  on 16.12.2017 the complainant came to the showroom of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and booked one Maruti Suzuki Vitara Breeza Vdi (O) and paid the booking amount of Rs.21,000/-, but no commitment was ever given to deliver the booked vehicle to the complainant in the month of February, 2018 but only a tentative delivery date (not confirmed) 16^th March, 2018 was mentioned in the booking order, but the complainant has concocted a false story that the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have promised to deliver the vehicle on or before 6th February, 2018. Moreover, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  have no knowledge about the marriage  of the complainant. But  we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.

12.     It is not disputed that opposite parties no.2 and 3 at that time  received Rs.21,000/- as an pre-booking amount of said car Vitara Breeza from the father of complainant and issued a receipt in this respect in the name of complainant, as the vehicle was booked in the name of complainant.  It is the case of the complainant that thereafter complainant and her father became busy in the arrangements of the marriage, but at the end of the month of January, the complainant received a call from the officers of opposite party no.2 that they can not deliver the car as agreed above to they upto 6^th February 2018, with a ulterior motive & demand extra amount on denying by complainant they made a excuse of car that they will not deliver the car before marriage. That after receiving the call complainant got shock that the marriage is going to be performed on 6^th February, 2018 and requested the said officer that now on 28-01-2018 they told me this time that they cannot deliver the car to me upto 6^th February 2018, it is bad on their part and their services are deficient one. When complainant objected to the same then the said officers said that they came tomorrow in our agency at Moga and take back their pre-booking amount from us. That on the next day the complainant along-with her father and two/three relatives came at Moga in the showroom of opposite party no.2 and requested them to please hand over the vehicle upto 6^th February 2018 on the receipt of remaining payment and also requested that in case they not deliver the vehicle (car) Vitara Breeza upto 6^th February 2018 it will injure the reputation of complainant in the matrimonial house and also it will injure the reputation of my father and also requested that they had assured to us that they will deliver the same upto 6^th February 2018. Upon this the officers of opposite party no.2 on the instigation of opposite party no.3 said that if they want the car Vitara Breeza on time then they have to pay extra amount, but when complainant and her father denied and said that they have booked the car one and half month ago and also paid the pre-booking amount and they also assured to deliver the same on or before 06-02-2018, so now they can not demand extra money from us and complainant also said that it seems that they have already deliver our booked car to someone else by receiving extra money. On hearing this, the opposite party no.2 become annoyed and instead of consider the request of complainant and their relatives, issued a cheuqe of Rs.21,000/- Dt.29-01-2018 in favour of complainant and said that they can do whatever they want to do and also take back the booking receipt from the complainant with the saying that otherwise they will not return the pre-booking amount.  That thereafter to save the reputation before the relatives, father of complainant immediately on the same day again booked the car in the name of complainant before the authorized service centre i.e. Mapsko Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and they made an estimate on 29-01-2018 for an amount of Rs.9,30,697/- and also demanded Rs.2,00,000/- extra for giving the immediate delivery upto 6^th February 2018 with the saying that they are not in a queue of waiting of 1-1/2 month  and under a compulsion and pressure father of complainant agreed to pay Rs.2 Lac extra to them only to save the reputation of the family in the eyes of relative and in-laws family of complainant. The complainant also paid Rs.21,000/- pre-booking amount and Rs.2 Lac extra to them and in this regard they have also issued a receipt Dt.30-01-2018.That thereafter father of complainant took the delivery of Vitara Breeza Car from the Faridkot Agency and gave it to the complainant in her marriage which was solemnized on 6^th February 2018. We are of the view that after getting back the pre booking amount from the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, what was the need for the complainant to purchase a new same model Vitara Breeza Car from Faridkot Agency after spending more amount and what was the need for the complainant to lodge the instant complaint by spending huge amount, more so,  by paying the hefty amount on account counsel fee by reaching Moga from Fazilka.   In this regard, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have failed to prove any rivalry or any other reason or  ill will with the complainant to lodge a consumer complaint against them without any reason. Hence, we are of the view that  the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have refused to deliver the booked car well before the marriage of the complainant and as such, the complainant was compelled to purchase new same model Vitara Breeza Car from Faridkot Agency after spending more amount.  Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention over here that otherwise also there was  urgency on the part of family members of complainant to purchase car & the only reason is of marriage of complainant as in-laws of complainant demand the car in question in dowry. Moreover Ex ops 2,3 /2 ORDER BOOKING/ COMMITMENT CHECKLIST  in which specifically mentioned in top that special reasons which proves the urgency of complainant. Not only this,  the complainant was also compelled to file the instant complaint by spending huge extra money and due to mental tension and  harassment caused in  the hands of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. As such, we are of the view, that  there is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and for this, they should be burdened reasonably due to lapse and deficiency in service on their part.

13.   Now come  to the quantum of compensation. In her complaint  the complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two Lac) on account of excess paid under force by the father of complainant due to the negligence and mal practices and deficiency in service of opposite parties to Mapsko Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealer, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot for purchasing the car Maruti Vitara Breeza Vdi (O) for her daughter i.e. complainant for her marriage purpose which had to be solemnized on 6^th February 2018, to deliver the same in a short span of time, after the refusal of opposite parties on 29-01-2018 and also claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by complainant at the hands of opposite parties, to the complainant, jointly and severally besides Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. But however, the complainant has failed to prove the amount paid in excess amounting to Rs.2 lakhs toMapsko Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Faridkot for purchasing the car Maruti Vitara Breeza Vdi (O. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakh  is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would  be fully met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-  and we award the same accordingly.

14.     In views of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we  partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are directed to make the lump sum compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousands only)  to the complainant   alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the instant complaint i.e. 23.05.2018 till its actual realization. However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 stands dismissed.   Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to  get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission.   Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.  

15.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 29.11.2021.