DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
D.No._____________________ Dated: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
CC No: 542/2014
HARIPALS/o SH. RAMESH CHANDER DABAS,
R/o H. No. 553, VILLAGE-KANJHAWALA,
DELHI-110081. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. M/s T R SAWHNEY MOTORS (P) LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
A-16 & 17, SARASWATI VIHAR,
NEAR DEEPALI CHOWK, DELHI-110034.
2. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA
PLOT NO.-1, NELSON MANDELA ROAD,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070.… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
Date of Institution: 02.05.2014
CC NO. 1553/14
AMIT DABAS S/o SH. BRAHM DEV
R/o VILLAGE- BUDHAN PUR, MAZRA DABAS,
DELHI-110081
Versus
1. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA
PLOT NO.-1, NELSON MANDELA ROAD,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070.
2. T.R. SAWHNEY MOTORS PVT. LTD.
A-16,17 SARASWATI VIHAR, OUTER RING ROAD,
PITAM PURA DELHI-110034. …. OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
Date of Institution: 23.12.2014
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of decision: 26.09.2019
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 1 of 13
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. By this common order the two complaint cases as mentioned above are being decided together as facts involved in the present cases are same, the complainants in the two cases are related to each other and OP is the same. The complainants have filed the present complaint against OP under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that in the season of Navratras, the complainant, Haripal alongwith his 2 friends planned to purchase the vehicle i.e. Maruti Wagon-R LXi CNG M.C.-2013 of same colour and they went to various showrooms of authorized dealers of Maruti to enquire about rates and other schemes if any. The complainant further alleged that on the showroom of OP Sh. Arvind, an official of OP met him and agreed for sale of 3 vehicles of the same model and colour and finalized one car for Rs.4,30,000/-, 2nd car for Rs.4,29,000/- & 3rd car for Rs.4,26,000/-. Mr. Arvind the representative of OP agreed to take booking amount from residence of the complainant on 16.03.2014 and on the said date the complainant gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- and asked Mr. Arvind to collect the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- and documents for loan within 2 days. On failure of Mr. Arvind to come to the residence of the complainant, the complainant tried to contact him on his mobile phone which was switched off and thereupon the
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 2 of 13
complainant went to showroom of OP where one Sh. Avinash who told himself to be senior of Sh. Arvind met the complainant and informed that Sh. Arvind has met with an accident on his return from the house of the complainant and is on leave. Thereupon, Sh. Avinash admitted the receiving of Rs.10,000/- and demanded balance booking amount for the 3rd vehicle. The complainant alleged that thereafter he paid Rs.10,000/- and loan documents and on 23.03.2014, the complainant received a call from Sh. Avinash and informed the complainant that he is in need of Rs.2,000/- and requested the complainant that the booking amount be treated as Rs.8,000/-. The complainant agreed for same and the booking slip no. 12298 dated 24.03.2014 was sent to the complainant at his residence. The complainant further alleged that he received a telephonic call from Sh. Avinash informing that loan in respect of his friend namely Rajiv S/o Sh. Jai Kishan R/o Village-Bhalswa, Delhi-110033 has been approved and requested to come alongwith 8 cheques, original voter card and down payment for which the complainant agreed. The complainant further alleged that they went to showroom of OP at 12:00 noon but the vehicle was delivered only at 8:30 P.M. and Sh. Avinash requested the complainant not to disclose that the vehicle has been delivered at 8:30 P.M. otherwise an amount of Rs.1,500/- will be deducted from his salary.
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 3 of 13
2. The complainant further alleged that after some days he received a call from Sh. Avinash stating that loan in the name of the complainant has been rejected and thereupon the complainant asked for refund of booking amount of Rs.10,000/- on which Sh. Avinash informed that OP has also reserved two more vehicles i.e. Wagon-R and those vehicles have to be taken either on cash or loan in the other persons but was refused by OP. The complainant further alleged that he demanded time of 1 or 2 days and applied for loan approval in the name of his cousin brother namely Sh. Amit S/o Sh. Brahamdev, R/o Villag-Mazra, Delhi-110081. The complainant further alleged that on 31.03.2014 he alongwith his friend namely Joginder Kumar S/o Suraj Bhan R/o Village-Tatesar, Delhi-110081 went to take delivery of 2nd vehicle, Sh. Avinash demanded more money and thereupon the complainant paid Rs.3,000/- and Sh. Avinash assured the complainant to adjust Rs.2,000/- which was for the booking of his car and a booking receipt no.12588 dated 06.04.2014 of Rs.5,000/- was issued. The complainant further alleged that on 06.04.2014 he received a telephonic call from Sh. Avinash that loan in the name of Sh. Amit has been approved and asked the complainant to come alongwith Amit, 8 cheques, original voter card, down payment of Rs.1,42,500/- and to take the delivery of the vehicle. The complainant further alleged that they deposited an amount of Rs.1,42,500/- with OP vide receipt no.12615 dated 07.04.2014 and
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 4 of 13
when the vehicle was to be delivered, Sh. Avinash asked for attestation of signature of Sh. Amit from the bank prior to delivery of vehicle. On 09.04.2014, Sh. Amit got his signature attested from CITI Bank and went to showroom of OP to take delivery of the vehicle. Sh. Avinash informed that the vehicle is ready and standing outside the showroom which was bearing chassis no. 611482. The complainant further alleged that on physical inspection of the vehicle it was found that right side fender and left side of front window has been painted and the complainant pointed out for the same but OP refused initially. However, on persistent opposition by the complainant, the representative of OP offered for Rubbing and Tufflon Coating on the vehicle. The complainant asked for delivery of a new car and not an old vehicle. Upon heated arguments senior officer of OP assured for delivering the new vehicle within 2 days. On 11.04.2014, the complainant telephoned Sh. Avinash who informed that the vehicle has been received but to take delivery of the vehicle after some days. The complainant alleged that he resisted for the same on the ground that the vehicle was to be delivered during Navratra and insisted to take delivery of the vehicle on the same day and he alongwith reached the showroom of OP on 11.04.2014 where upon they found that many people and police were present at the showroom of OP and public were slogans that “T.R. Sawhney is a thief, dacoit and has consumed their money as one staff member of OP after taking
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 5 of 13
money from them had run away and OP has refused to refund the money. The complainant further alleged that after sometime Sh. Avinash met them and informed that the vehicle was parked at parking lot of Madhuban Chowk, Metro Station due to shortage of parking space in the showroom. Thereupon they reached the parking lot and found that the vehicle which was to be delivered was in a more-poor condition as if the vehicle has been dented and painted by some unqualified mechanic. The window though was locked was moving, many scratches were there and window rubber was also not properly fitted. The complainant took the photo of the said vehicle and asked Sh. Avinash to give delivery of the new vehicle. Thereupon, the representative of OP refused and stated to the complainant that OP is not manufacturing the vehicles and the manufacturing company “Maruti” has been sending the vehicles in the same conditions and asked the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle from the two vehicles as shown to the complainant, on the pretext that billing of the vehicle has already been done otherwise OP would have sold the vehicle and refused to return the money to the complainant as well as his cousin brother and further asked the complainant to come after 8-10 days for negotiation. Thereupon, the complainant threatened the officials of OP to go to the court and thereupon the staff members of OP informed the complainant that 360 cases are already pending against OP in different courts and one more case will not affect OP and OP will
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 6 of 13
contest the case and will ruin the future of the complainant and his cousin brother and further asked the complainant not to entangle with OP and to take delivery of vehicle. The complainant alleged that the complainant as well as his cousin brother refused to take delivery of defective vehicle. The other staff members of OP also threatened the complainant and his brother to involve them in false case of molestation with sales girls of OP. The complainant alleged that they could not take any action on that date. The complainant further alleged that on 13.04.2014 at about 2:16 PM he received a telephonic call from Sh. Rawal and the complainant insisted for taking the new vehicle and thereupon Sh. Rawal asked the complainant to pay Rs.30,000/- more and the same was refused by the complainant. The complainant further alleged that due to refusal by OP to give him new vehicle i.e. WagonR he alongwith his family members have felt insulted in the village as well as locality as the down payment was arranged by selling old vehicle Maruti 800. The complainant further alleged that he lodged a complainant no. 4410443809 at Maruti Customer Care no. 1800102800 against OP but he did not receive any reply from OP. The complainant has accordingly alleged that there has been unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.
3. On these allegations the complainants have filed the complaintspraying for direction to OP either for refund of the money deposited
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 7 of 13
or new car and are also seeking strict action against OP including imposition of heavy penalty.
4. OPs did not contest CC No. 542/2014 as OPs did not file their replies. However, on 29.01.2015, Counsel for OP handed over a Demand Draft no. 027332 dated 28.01.2015 of Rs.8,000/- which was accepted by the complainant Haripal without prejudice to his right of seeking compensation, interest etc.
5. In CC No. 1553/2014, OP-1 i.e. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. has filed written statement and has been contesting the case and in the written statement OP-1 submitted that the complaint as against OP-1 is not maintainable as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP-1 and further OP-1 has not entered into agreement with the complainant for sale of vehicle and as such the case is liable to be dismissed. OP-1 further submitted that the manufacturing company i.e. Maruti India sells/invoices the vehicles to its dealers under the dealership agreement and the dealer sells the vehicles to the customers under their own invoice and sale certificate as per their own terms and conditions which are settled between the dealer and the customer and as such the manufacturing company is not liable for any act of omission or commission on the part of the dealer and the relationship between the manufacturing company and the dealer is based on principal to principal basis and are separate and independent legal entities and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 8 of 13
6. Whereas, OP-2 i.e. Dealer T.R. Sawhney Motors did not file the reply despite giving opportunities though Sh. N.K. Rathi Advocate on behalf of Dealer appeared and filed Vakalatnama alongwith Board Resolution in favour of Sh. Anil Mishra who had sent the vakalatnama in favour of Sh. N.K. Rathi Advocate. Subsequently OPs did not appear and had been proceeded ex-parte.
7. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 and reiterated the allegations contained in the complaint.
8. In order to prove their cases both the complainants filed their affidavit of evidence in their case and also filed documents i.e. Booking receipt no. 12298 dated 24.03.2014 issued by OP-1 of Rs.8,000/- in the name of Sh. Haripal, booking receipt no. 12588 dated 06.04.2014 of Rs.5,000/- and payment receipt no. 12615 dated 07.04.2014 of Rs.1,42,500/- in the name of Sh. Amit Dabas, copy of certificate dated 09.04.2014 issued by the Manager, Citi Bank regarding signature verification of Sh. Amit Dabas, Copies of invoices of Rs.4,29,901/- and Rs.4,29,000/- issued by the dealer in the names of Sh. Rajive and Sh. Joginder Kumar respectively, thirty photographs of the vehicle showing dents, scratches, loosened rubber of window of the vehicle and paint marks, letter dated 20.05.2014 signed by Vijeta, Manager Customer Care of T.R. Sawhney Motors, copy of complaints dated 06.05.2014 showing photographs of the vehicle having defects, dated 07.06.2014,
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 9 of 13
05.12.2014 sent by the complainant through e-mail to the OP T.R. Sawhney.
9. On the other hand, on behalf of Ops no affidavit in evidence of any official of OPs have been filed.
10. During the proceedings of the case the complainant has filed an application for holding an enquiry about loss of Banker’s Cheques no. 379090 dated 19.11.2014 of Rs.1,47,500/- and DD no. 379089 dated 19.11.2014 of Rs.9214.00 both drawn on State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi and both in favour of Sh. Amit Dabas. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the concerned Bank and in pursuance there to, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk Branch appeared and filed the above said two original Banker’s Cheques. As earlier observed the second case i.e. CC No. 1553/2014 was filed on 23.12.2014 and there is no endorsement on any order sheet that OP has filed the two Banker’s Cheques before the Forum. So, It cannot be said that the said Banker’s Cheques were lost from the record of this Forum. Further no weight can be given to the photocopies of the two Banker’s Cheques having endorsement original received on 30.06.2015. Sh. Yashwant Rawat, Deputy Manager, SBI, Chandni Chowk Branch who has appeared before the Forum and has filed the two Banker’s Cheque alongwith photocopy of letter dated 31.07.2015 of T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd. thereby requesting cancellation of the above two Banker’s cheque and crediting the amount in the account
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 10 of 13
of the company. In these circumstances, it is futile to hold an enquiry as prayed by the complainant and request is declined.
11. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The various photographs of the vehicle clearly shows that the vehicle sought to be delivered to the complainant by the dealer was having various defects and in a new vehicle these defects should not have been present. The various photographs of the vehicle and the unrebutted evidence of the complainant shows that the vehicle was having various defects and the complainants were justified in refusing to take the delivery of the vehicle which was having defects in it. The manufacturing company is not liable for the acts and omissions of the dealer. In this regards reliance can be given to a decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petitions No. 3677, 3702, 3703, 3704 of 2006 decided on 1st September, 2011 in case entitled V.K. Gupta and sons (HUF) Vs M/s Maruti Udyog & Ors., S.K. Gupta & Sons (HUF) Vs M/s Maruti Udyog & Ors., Tilak Raj Gupta Vs M/s Maruti Udyog & Ors. and Smt. Saroj Gupta Vs M/s Maruti Udyog & Ors. respectively.
12. The documents and evidence of the complainants shows that in the present cases, the complainants havebooked two vehicles and in the first case the complainant Sh. Haripal has paid the booking
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 11 of 13
amount of Rs.8,000/- only and his application for loan was not approved. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of dealer in CC No. 542/2014 and no relief can be given to the complainant.
13. Whereas in the second case i.e. CC No. 1553/2014 the complainant Sh. Amit Dabas, besides booking amount of Rs.5,000/- has also paid an amount of Rs.1,42,500/- as down payment to the dealer for purchasing the vehicle i.e. Wagon R CNG 2013 but the said vehicle was not delivered by the dealer and the dealer tried to give a defective vehicle which was justifiably refused to be accepted by the complainant. During proceedings of the case i.e. on 09.04.2015, OP has offered a sum of Rs.1,56,714/- to the complainant which was refused to be accepted by the complainant. Accordingly, in the light of above we are of opinion that action of OP i.e. the dealer namely T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd. amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Thus, OP-2 in CC No. 1553/2014 is held guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
14. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct the OP i.e T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd. as under:
-
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for harassment caused and mental agony suffered.
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014Page 12 of 13
-
15. The above amount shall be paid by OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OPshall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the dateof payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
16. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.A copy of this order be also placed in other file.
Announced on this 26th day of September, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.542/2014 & 1553/2014 Page 13 of 13
UPLOADED BY:SATYENDRA JEET
