Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/461/2013

Surinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India through its Regional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Comp. in person

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	461 of 2013
Date  of  Institution	:	11.10.2013
Date   of   Decision	:	10.04.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Surinder Singh s/o Sh.Arjun Singh, resident of H.No.202, Sector 25, Panchkula.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Maruti Suzuki India through its Regional manager, SCO no.39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

2]  Berkeley Automobiles Limited through its Managing Director, Plot No.27, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

 

3]  Rajeev Handa (Chief General Manager), Berkeley Automobiles Limited, Plot No.27, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

 

4]   Vikrant Thakur s/o Sh.Chaman Lal Thakur (Salesman), Berkeley Automobiles Limited, Plot No.27, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.  [Deleted vide order dated 7.4.2014

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

Argued By:  Sh.P.K.Sharma, Counsel for complainant.

None for OPs No.1, 2 & 3

Opposite Party-4 deleted.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As none appeared on behalf of OPs No.1, 2 & 3 on the date of arguments i.e. 30.3.2015, therefore, we proceed to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in absence of the OPs No.1, 2 & 3.

2]       As per the case of the complainant, he earned his livelihood by providing taxi service to the Banks.  It is averred that the complainant booked Dzire VDI White Car with Opposite Party No.2 at its premises on 17.7.2012 through its Executive Vikrant Thakur and paid Rs.3,40,000/- in cash towards the booking vide Ann.C-1.  It is averred that the entire transaction/dealing has been recorded in the CCTV Camera installed by the company being monitored by Opposite Parties NO.2.  When the complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 on 28.8.2012 to know & get the delivery of the said booked car, he was told that Sh.Vikrant Thakur has been sacked from the company and a notice has been given in the newspaper.  It is also averred that when the complainant demanded refund of his booking amount from Opposite Party No.2 as all the transaction was taken place at the premises of Opposite Party No.2; for Opposite Party No.2 and with the employees engaged by Opposite Party No.2, but still Opposite Party No.2 denied the refund of any booking amount.  The matter was brought to the notice of the police and FIR No.248, dated 18.9.2012 (Ann.C-4) was registered.  Thereafter, also the complainant kept on visiting Opposite Party No.2 for either getting delivery of the booked car or refund of the booking amount, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2]       Opposite Party No.1 has filed the reply and took objection that the complainant is not a consumer qua it as he did not enter into any contract for the sale or hire any service for consideration with the answering Opposite Party.  It is stated that the relationship between Opposite Party No.1 and its dealers is based on principal-to-principal basis.  It is pleaded that the complainant has admittedly booked the alleged vehicle under a contract for sale of goods (Maruti Dzire VDI) with Opposite Party No.2 and entered into an agreement after having mutually settled terms and conditions of sale with Opposite Party No.2.  It is also pleaded that the complainant has executed a separate sale agreement in the form of Order Booking Form dated 17.7.2012 with Opposite Party No.2.  However, the complainant did not pay any amount to Opposite Party No.1, hence Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to sell/deliver the vehicle to the complainant. The Opposite Party No.2, an erstwhile dealer, was a separate and independent legal entity.  Rest of the allegations have been denied being not related to Opposite Party No.1 and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

         The OPs No.2 & 3 have filed joint reply stating therein that the complainant is not a consumer of the answering Opposite Parties as they have not received even a single paisa from the complainant on any account.  It is submitted that the answering OPs only accepts Rs.10,000/- only against a valid receipt as booking amount  and not Rs.3.40 lacs as alleged.  The booking form so relied by the complainant is neither a receipt of any amount.  The aid document is a fabricated document prepared by the complainant either in connivance with Vikrant Thakur or fabricated himself as the blank booking forms were freely available at the dealership of answering OPs. The Complainant had on his own approached Vikrant Thakur and committed a deal outside the premises of answering Opposite Parties as there was an average waiting period of six months for delivering the vehicle in question. As soon as the Opposite Party No.2 came to know about the misdeeds of aforesaid Vikrant Thakur, he eloped and is still on the run (Police Complaint and Public Notice at Annexure R-2/2 and R-2/3), who after conducting the investigation has filed the Challan (Ann.R-2/4). Denying rest of the allegations, a prayer has been made by Opposite Parties for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint against the OPs on the ground that the complainant, who wanted to buy a swift desire VDI white car from Opposite Party No.2 for the purpose of giving it on rent to a leading bank for which he had secured a letter of intent (Ann.C-2) for the purpose of his livelihood.  The complainant made a payment of Rs.3,40,000/- in cash at the premises of Opposite Party NO.2 and in lieu of that payment, he was given Ann.C-1, which is Order Booking Commitment Check List Customer Copy.  This document contains the name of the complainant, his address, mobile number, the ex-showroom price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.6,60,000/- along with Rs.16,000/- towards registration charges.  This document is found stamped in ink of the address of Opposite Party No.2 as well as the signature of Vikrant Thakur are also found appended under the column for (Dealership Name).  Though, the complainant has mentioned few other names, such as Sandeep Kumar, Rajiv Verma, Gurnam Singh, Om Sawroop, as other OPs, but preferred not to implead them as necessary parties, whereas even after having impleaded Vikrant Thakur, as Opposite Party NO.4, preferred not to press the present complaint against him and deleted his name from the array of parties by giving a statement dated 7.4.2014. 

 

6]       The complainant has claimed that Opposite Party No.2 is infact deficient in giving proper service to him for the reason that even after a passage of 1½ months of receipt of Rs.3,40,000/-, there was no news about the tentative date of delivery of the vehicle and when on 28.8.2012 on one of his visits at the premises of Opposite Party No.2, he was informed that it had sacked its employee Vikrant Thakur and that it had no knowledge about the booking of the car in question, by the complainant. 

 

7]       The Opposite Party No.2 & 3 though has objected to the present complaint taking technical objections with regard to non-impleading of Opposite Parties NO.5,6 & 7 namely the persons quoted in the complaint and also on the ground that there was no original receipt of an amount of Rs.3,40,000/-, so that the genuineness of its deposit could be believed as Opposite Party No.2 has claimed that only a token amount of Rs.1,0000/- is received towards booking charges and rest of amount is received at the time of delivery of the vehicle.

 

8]       The complainant has impleaded Sh.Rajiv Handa Opposite Party NO.3, who otherwise has preferred to file a joint reply alongwith Opposite Party NO.1 without disclosing about his knowledge of the facts of the complaint.  However, OPs NO.2 & 3 claims to have given a public notice (Ann.R-2/3) declaring Vikrant Thakur as absconder, whereas on perusal of Ann.R-2/3, it is revealed that the same is an advance copy of additional complaint dated 21.9.20 against Vikrant Thakur to the office of  Director Genera of Police, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, meaning thereby that no such public notice as claimed by OPs NO.2 & 3 has been published in the public domain in forming the general public or the complainant about disassociation of Opposite Party No.2 with Vikrant Thakur, nor there is any disclosure of the wrongful acts of omission & commission of Vikrant Thakur committed on the premises of Opposite Party NO.2 cautioning the General Public to not deal with him.  Therefore, at the point of time i.e. on 17.7.2012, when Vikrant Thakur received an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- and signed Ann.C-1 at the premises of Opposite Party NO.2, he was acting on behalf of Opposite Party NO.2 in his capacity as its Employee and for acts of omission & commission of  Vikrant Thakur, Opposite Party NO.2 is vicariously liable for the reason that if at all profits are generated by the efforts of its employee, then the losses that occurred due to the act of such employee too are to be borne by Opposite Party NO.2 alone and nobody else. 

 

9]       The OPs NO.2 & 3 have raised objections with regard to the veracity of the payment of Rs.3,40,000/- and non-issuance of proper receipt against it, however, they have preferred not to place on record any genuine document from where their pleadings could be believed.  It is a simple business practice that any business enterprise which receives or pays in cash a Day Book is maintained and all such transactions are recorded, so that the contents of such Book can be referred at a later stage and also the name of the employee making such entries can also be identified.  Therefore, in the absence of any cogent proof of a streamlined working of the office of Opposite Party NO.2 & 3, the bald pleadings as mentioned in their reply/version cannot be believed and the Ann.C-1 placed on record by the complainant clearly showing the receipt of Rs.3,40,000/- on 17.7.2012 proves that the complainant had made a payment of Rs.3,40,000/- towards the purchase of white Maruti Swift Dzire VDI model Car and the failure in not  acknowledging the booking and also having retained the entire money, without an definite promise of delivery of vehicle certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs NO.2 & 3.  It is also observed that since the date of deposit i.e. 17.7.2012, the complainant has not been able to use the money and has also suffered loss for not having enjoyed the same to his advantage, therefore, the complainant is also entitled to a simple interest on the said amount till the same is paid back to him.

 

10]      The complainant in his entire complaint has not alleged any deficiency in service against Opposite Party No.1, but has only impleaded it as a necessary party for the reasons that it was on account of the sale of vehicle manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party NO.2 & 3 were making unlawful gains by changing the priority of its customers without following the principle of first come-first served.  Therefore, we do not find any merit nor there is any conclusive allegation against Opposite Party No.1 and also no specific relief has been claimed.  Hence, we dismiss the present complaint qua Opposite Party NO.1.

 

11]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against OPs No.2 & 3 jointly & severally and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are jointly & severally directed as under:-

[i] To refund Rs.3,40,000/- to the complainant along with simple interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till it is paid;

 

 [ii] To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant;

 

[iii] To pay Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

 

         This order shall be complied with by OPs No.2 & 3 jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @18% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- from the date of deposit till it is paid, and on the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

10^th April, 2014

                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

          Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

 

          Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

                                                                          

 

                                          

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.461 OF 2013

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 10th day of April, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.1.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member