Delhi

StateCommission

A/548/2019

AMIT DABAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Nov 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :18.11.2019

Date of Decision : 21.11.2019

FIRST APPEAL NO.548/2019

In the matter of:

 

Amit Dabas,

C/o. Hari Pal Dabas,

House No.553, Village Kanjhawala,

(Behind SBI), Delhi-110081.………Appellant

 

Versus

           

1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant  Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

 

2. T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

A-27 Pushpanjali Enclave, Gate No.1,

Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. ……..Respondents

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. This is a fresh appeal at the stage of admission. The appeal is against order dated 26.09.19 passed in two complaints no. 542/14 and 1553/14. Both were decided by common judgement. The former complaint was dismissed as it was held that mere registration does not make one consumer. The complainant of that case felt satisfied and has not carried forward the matter.
2. The case of appellant who was complainant in the later case is that Shri Hari Pal booked Maruti Wagon  for Rs.4,29,000/-. He went to the show room of the OP where he was informed that AR of OP with met an accident. On 23.03.14 he received a telephone from Shri Avinash, AR of the OP that he was a need of Rs.2,000/- So he requested the complainant to treat booking amount as Rs.8,000/-. The complainant agreed and booking slip no.12298 dated 24.03.14 was sent. He received call from aforesaid Shri Avinash stating that loan in the name of complainant is rejected. The complainant asked for refund of booking amount of Rs.10,000/-. The AR of the OP informed that he had reserved two more vehicles which could be taken either on cash or loan. He demanded time for one or two days and applied for loan in the name of his cousin brother Shri Amit / complainant. On 31.03.14 complainant. On 31.03.14 complainant and his friend Shri Joginder Kumar went to take delivery. Shri Avinash, AR OP demanded more money, complainant paid Rs.3,000/- Shri Avinash  assured to adjust Rs.2,000/- which was for booking of the car. A receipt no.12588 dated 06.04.14 for Rs.5,000/- was issued. On 06.04.14 he received a telephonic call from Shri Avinash that the loan has been approved and asked the complainant to come alongwith 8 cheques, original voter card, down payment of Rs.1,42,500/- and take delivery of the vehicle. He deposited Rs.1,42,500/- vide receipt no.12615 dated 07.04.14. On 09.04.14 when the complainant went to showroom of OP to take delivery of the vehicle, Shri Avinash informed that vehicle  was ready and standing outside the showroom which was bearing chassis no.611482, on physical inspection of the vehicle it was found that right side fender and left side of front window had been painted. He pointed out the same but OP refused initially. However on persistent opposition by the  complainant, the AR of the OP offered for rubbing and tufflon coating on the vehicle. He 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 11.04.14 he telephoned Shri Avinash who informed that vehicle had been received but to take delivery after some days. He registered the same on the ground that vehicle was to be delivered during navratra and insisted to take delivery on the same day. He reached showroom of the OP where he found that many people and police were present, public were raising slogans that T.R. Sawhney is a thief, dacoit and had consumed their money as one staff member of OP after taking money  had run away and OP had refused the money.
3. I may mention that the above allegations are altogether irrelevant for the present case.
4. Shri Avinash informed that vehicle was parked at parking lot  of Madhuban   Chowk Metro Station due to shortage of parking  space in the showroom. He reached parking and found that vehicle was in a more poor condition as if the same had 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. He took the photo of the vehicle and asked Shri Avinash to give delivery of new vehicle. The AR of OP told that OP was not manufacturing the vehicles, the manufacturing company was ‘Maruti’ which was sending vehicles in that condition and asked the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle from the two  vehicles shown to appellant. He further told that billing had already been done, otherwise OP would have sold the vehicle  and refused to return money to the complainant. He asked the complainant to come after 8-10 days for negotiation. The complainant told  officials of OP to go to court. Staff members of OP informed that 360 cases were already pending against it in different courts and one more case would not affect it. It would contest the case and would ruin the future of the complainant. He asked the complainant not to entangle with the OP and to take delivery of the vehicle. He refused to take delivery of defective vehicle. The other staff members of OP threatened complainant  to involve him in false case of molestation with sales girls of OP.
5. On 13.04.14 he received a telephone call from Shri Rawal  who asked the complainant to pay Rs.30,000/- more for taking new vehicle. The complainant refused. He and his family members felt insulted in the village as down payment was arranged by selling old vehicle Maruti 800. He lodged complaint with customer care of Maruti but did not receive any reply. Hence he filed complaint for directing OP to refund money deposited or giving a new car. He also sought strict action  including imposition of heavy penalty.
6. OP-1 filed WS pleading that there was no privity of contract between complainant and OP-1. OP-1 which is a manufacturing company sell vehicle to its dealer under dealership agreement, dealer sales the vehicle to its customer under their own invoice. Relationship between manufacturer and dealer is based on principal to principal basis.
7. OP-2 / appellant did not file reply despite giving opportunities. Rather OP-2 did not appear and had been proceeded exparte.
8. The complainant filed rejoinder to WS of OP-1 and his own affidavit in evidence. He filed receipts no.12588 dated 06.04.14 and 12615 dated 07.04.14, 30 photographs of vehicle showing dent, scratches loosen rubber of window and paint marks.
9. The District Forum found that manufacturing company is not liable for act and omission of dealer. In this regard it placed reliance on decision of NC in RP no.3677, 3702 to 3704/2006 decided on 01.09.11.
10. District Forum observed that during proceedings of the case on 09.04.15 OP offered Rs.1,56,714/- which was refused by the complainant. Thus the OP was deficient in service and the impugned order was passed.
11. Now the complainant is in appeal for grant of interest and compensation for harassment.
12. I have gone through the material on record and heard AR of the appellant. I feel that whatever relief the appellant has got, has got simply because OP-2 remained  exparte. It did not defend the case. Otherwise it would have been very difficult for complainant/ appellant to prove that the car was old or repainted.
13. Moreover the appellant has not filed copy of the complaint to show that he ever claimed interest. What can be made out from the impugned order in para-3 at page-46 that the complainants filed case for direction to OP to refund the amount or give new car. That is all. So  the District Forum was justified in directing refund and in not awarding any interest. The District Forum  has taken care of interest of the appellant by directing the respondents to pay the amount within 30 days from receipt of copy of order failing which OP  would be liable to pay interest @10% p.a. from the date of receiving copy of order till the date of payment.
14. I do not find any ground to interfere, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
15. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
16. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
17. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)