DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.122 of 21.3.2016

                                      Decided on:         3.2.2021

Vijay Kapoor, aged about 50 years, son  of late Sh.Raj Kumar Kapoor, resident of House No.244, Street No.12, Manjit Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., through its Managing Director having its Corporate office at #1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,Regional Office at SCO 39-40,Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160018.email ID:contact@maruti.co.in
3. Atelier Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Chairman having registered office at # 1246, Sector -8, Chandigarh-160017.
4. Atelier Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office,Rajpura-Patiala Road, near Casba Resort, Bahadurgarh-140401 . e-mail ID office@ptl.atelier-corp.com.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.Sameer Gupta, counsel for complainant.

                                      Smt.Kusum Sood, counsel for OPs No.2&4.

                                      Complaint against OPs No.1&3 not admitted.

ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed by Vijay Kapoor (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s)
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that the complainant for purchasing the car to be given to his daughter as gift on her marriage to be held on 29.1.2016 approached OP No.4, the authorized dealer of OP No.1 where Jasvir Singh Sales Executive and Varinder Walia, Team leader of OP No.4 who gave information about various models of car Swift Dzire and the  complainant selected the car Swift Dzire VDI optional in which the additional facility of two airbags was available on the extra payment of Rs.12,000/-.It is averred that the complainant also disclosed the marriage date of his daughter. The OP No.4 assured that the optional model would be delivered before the date of marriage. Accordingly the complainant booked the car Swift Dzire VDI optional model by making the advance payment of Rs.5000/- vide receipt No.047 dated 4.1.2016.OP No.4 also issued book let i.e. customer docket in this regard in which the ex-showroom price of that particular model alongwith other expenses and also the tentative waiting period of 20 days for delivery was mentioned by the OPs.
3. It is averred that the complainant wanted to get the car financed as such he applied for loan to the Bank of India on the basis of the amount disclosed by the OP in the booklet. The bank prepared the proposal and loan of Rs.7,00,000/- was sanctioned. The complainant delivered demand draft of Rs.7,00,000/- to Mr.Varinder Walia, Team leader on 26.1.2016.
4. It is further averred on 27.1.2016 when the complainant was about to take the delivery of the booked model, he was very much surprised on the disclosure by the staff of OP No.4 that the optional model booked by him was not available and could not be delivered and was left with no  other alternative except to get the swift dzire VDI, invoiced on 27.1.2016 and took the delivery of Swift Dzire VDI on 29.1.2016 i.e. on the day of marriage under protest. It is further averred that OP No.4 has committed fraud with the complainant. It is further averred that OPs No.1&2 are also the part of fraud and malpractice as inspite of being aware about the factum of booking of optional model and having sufficient time, they did not make available the model as booked by the complainant. It is further averred that the OPs in order to save their skin falsely issued letter dated 2.2.2016 addressed in the name of the daughter of the complainant stating therein that their staff had made clear about the non availability of the optional model and the VDI model without option was delivered only on the acceptance by the complainant. The complainant got served legal notice dated 8.2.2016 upon the OPs for replacing the car with the model initially booked by him but no heed was paid by the OPs. The act and conduct of the OPs caused mental agony and humiliation to the complainant.
5. On this back ground of the facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to replace the car given to the complainant with the model booked and also pay damages to the tune of Rs.5lacs.
6. Notice of the complaint was given to OPs No.2&4 who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply having raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the OPs on receipt of  booking for a particular model of the car from the complainant, have duly placed the order with the manufacturer for delivery of the same at the earliest. It is further pleaded that on 25.1.2016 the OPs informed the complainant regarding the non availability of the model desired by him.It  is further pleaded that major difference between the model Swift Dzire VDI-O and the model Swift Dzire VDI is of into air bags and nothing more than that. It is further pleaded that non availability of the Swift Dzire VDI (O) was not deliberate part of the OPs and they have received the lot of the Swift Dzire VDI-O after more than three months.
7. On merits , it is admitted that an advance payment of Rs.5000/- vide receipt No.047 dated 4.1.2016 was furnished by OP No.4 alongwith other documents mentioning a tentative waiting period of twenty days and no guarantee was given by the OPs for the assured delivery of the car within that period. It is pleaded that when the manufacturer had not been able to deliver any vehicle to the retailer within any specific period, the retailer is entirely helpless and cannot make the same available to the customer.The OPs also reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary objections and after denying all other averments made in the complaint have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
8. In support of the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB affidavit  of Anand Parkash Gupta alongwith documents Exs.C1to C5 and closed the evidence.
9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.2&4 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OPA of Vijay Rana, General Manager ,Ex.OPB affidavit of Varinder Kumar Walia alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence.
10. The parties also filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was to purchase a car for the purpose of gift to be given at the time of the marriage of his daughter namely Amolika.The ld. counsel further argued that for this purpose he approached OP No.4 for purchasing the new car model Swift Dzire VDI Optional in which two air bags were available.The ld. counsel further argued that complainant also disclosed that marriage of his daughter is on 29.1.2016 and the complainant deposited Rs.5000/- . The ld. counsel further argued that complainant in order to get the car, the complainant availed loan from the Bank.The ld. counsel further argued that when on 27.1.2016, complainant was to take delivery of the car, he was surprised to know that the car which he booked was not available and he had to take the car which was without air bags.The ld. counsel further argued that this was deficiency in service and OP No.4 has played fraud with the complainant, so complaint be allowed.
12. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.3&4 argued that admittedly the car was booked with air bags but that car was not supplied by Maruti Suzuki and complainant was informed on 25.1.2016. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant got the model without air bag and Rs.5000/- which was charged as earnest money was given back to the complainant.The ld. counsel further argued that it was not any fault of OPs No.3&4 as car was to be manufactured by OPs No.1&2 and OPs No.1&2  was to supply the car with air bags.The ld. counsel further argued that the car with airbags was not supplied by OPs No.1&2 so OPs No.3&4  are not at fault.So complaint be dismissed.
13. To prove this case, the complainant has tendered affidavit,Ex.CA and  he has deposed as per his complaint alongwith documents. Ex.C1 is the receipt dated 4.1.2016 in the name of Amolika Kapoor and the model Dzire VOI ( O) was booked. Ex.C2 is the booking order issued by OPs No.3&4.Ex.C3 is the document of bank for loan of Rs.7lacs.Ex.C4 is the copy of wedding card,Ex.C5 is the receipt vide which the delivery of new car was taken under protest.Sh.Anand Parkash Gupta has also tendered affidavit Ex.CB and  he has supported the case of the complainant Sh.Vijay Kapoor in his affidavit.
14. On the other hand Sh.Vijay Rana,General Manager of OP No.3 has tendered his affidavit,Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement. Sh.Varinder Kumar Walia, team leader has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPB and he has deposed as per the written statement.Ex.OP1 is the document vide which the car with air bags was booked  and  in which it is written that  waiting period is 20 days.Ex.OP2 is the receipt of Rs.7lac as a payment of the car ,Ex.OP3 is the receipt vide which the car VDI is hypothecated with Bank of India,Ex.OP4 is the copy of cheque given to the complainant for his previous booking of his car with air bags and cheque was received under protest.
15. So by going through all the documents  in nutshell,  it is the case of the complainant that the complainant booked car vide Ex.C1 of Swift Dzire VDI(O) model  which was with two air bags. After that this model was not received by OP No.3&4 from OPs No.1&2 and the complainant had to purchase the car without air bags. It is also admitted case that Rs.12000/- was returned back to Sh.Vijay Kumar as he  has purchased the car without air bags.It is also admitted that Rs.5000/- which was given to OPs No.3&4 for booking of the car was also given back to the complainant.
16. In this case, the OPs No.3&4 are not at fault as the car which  was  manufactured by Maruti Suzuki and was to be supplied to OPs No.3&4. As the supply of the car was not given to OPs No.3&4, so OPs No.3&4 were not in a position to give the delivery of the car which was originally booked by the complainant. It is also admitted that the complainant purchased the another car Swift Dzire VDI Model and excess amount of Rs.12000/- was given back to the complainant .
17. So by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents on  file, OPs No.3&4 are not at all at fault as the car which was booked by the complainant was not supplied by OPs No.1&2 so they were not in a position to deliver the same to the complainant and another car without air bags was given to the complainant.
18. So due to our aforesaid discussion, there being no merit in the complaint,  the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are to bear their own costs.    

ANNOUNCED

DATED:3.2.2021

                                                 Y.S.Matta         Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                Member                      President