Haryana

Ambala

CC/110/2015

Mohit Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki - Opp.Party(s)

Shamsher Khatker

08 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No. 110 of 2015

Date of Institution  :  23.04.2015

Date of Decision    :  08.02.2016

Mohit Rana son of Shri Ravi Parkash, resident of village & Post Office Babyal, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                                                                                        ……Complainant.

                                                                        Versus

1. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (Head Office) 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi-NCR through its Chairman/C.M.D.
2. Modern Automobiles, Adjoining Model Town crossing, G.T. Road, Ambala City through its C.M.D.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:    SH.A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDR KUMAR, MEMBER.         

Present:             Sh. Shamsher Khatkar, Adv. counsel for complainant.  

                         Sh. Keshav Sharma, Adv. counsel for Op No.2.

                         Reply of OP No.1 received by post.

ORDER.

                   Present complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that   marriage of complainant’s younger sister was scheduled to be solemnized on 27.01.2015 and complainant wanted to gift her a car,  so the complainant visited OP No.2 for purchase a new Maruti Swift Dzire LXI car who assured that the car would be delivered to him on 23.01.2015 positively. On this assurance,  complainant  booked the said car, white colour on 17.01.2015 and paid Rs.10,000/- in cash as booking amount vide receipt No.929 dated 17.01.2015.  On 23.01.2015, complainant visited OP No.2 for taking delivery of the car where OP No.2 assured that car would be arrive by evening and it would be delivered to him positively today itself.   However, the car was not delivered by 25.01.2015 despite many visits and requests of the complainant.  Thus the complainant has to suffer a lot of mental agony due to the acts & conducts of OP No.2.   Since the reputation of complainant was at stake, so, he had to purchase a car of other company i.e. (Huyndai I-10) at a very high premium in order to gift the same to his sister.  Further it has been contended by the complainant that since the Ops were very well knowing that they are not in a position to deliver the car by the appointed day, even then they promised to deliver the same, as such, they misrepresented the fact and played fraud with him which amounts to  deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on their part.  A legal notice dated 04.02.2015 was served upon OPNo.2 but he neither made any payment nor replied the notice. Hence, having no alternative, complainant has preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                Upon notice, Op No.1 submitted written statement urging therein that complaint is not maintainable in the present form  and  they have been impleaded as unnecessary party in the complaint as matter of sale & purchase of vehicle is on Principal to Principal basis between the OP No.2  and the  answering OP and as such they are nowhere involved in the matter. Hence, their name be deleted from the array of Ops and complaint qua them be dismissed with costs.  However, on merits it has been submitted by OP No.1 in para no.3 of the reply that “the complainant has admittedly booked the vehicle in question with OP No.2 under a contract for sale of goods (Maruti Swift Dezire LXI) and  entered into an agreement after having mutually settled the terms & conditions of sale with OP No.2. Thus there is no privity of sale contract executed between the complainant and OP No.1.

3.                Op No.2 filed its written statement separately raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint as the booking amount has already been refunded to the complainant vide DD No.206106 dated 30.05.2015 and the same has been received by complainant, as such, there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on their part and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, booking amount deposited by the complainant  for purchase of the car in question has been admitted whereas rest of the contents of complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                To prove his version, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-6 and closed his evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Chander Shekhar, Manager as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-4 and closed their evidence.  However, during the course of arguments,  complainant’s counsel tendered original DD of Rs.10,000/- bearing No.206106 datd 30.05.2015 drawn at ICICI Bank, Shahbad annexing it with brief notes of written arguments which was taken on record as per provisions contained in Consumer Protection  Regulations, 2005.

5.                We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record very minutely. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that due to non-delivery of the vehicle in question by the OP No.2 on the marriage of complainant’s sister i.e. on 27.01.2015 inspite of commitment  made after receiving booking amount, complainant had to purchase a car of Hyundai Company by paying extra premium which is an example of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Ops whereas counsel for the OP No.2 thought admitted the fact of deposit of booking amount by the complainant but contended that since they failed to deliver the car, so, they had refunded the booking amount to the complainant and as such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. 

6.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the  documents produced by both the parties, it is not disputed that the vehicle in question was booked by the complainant with OP No.2 and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was received by him for the Dzire LXI car vide receipt dated 17.01.2016 (Annexure C-2). It is also clear from the document Annexure C-3 that the complainant was in the dire need of car to be presented as gift to her sister on the occasion of her marriage on 27.01.2016, so immediately he had to purchase a  car of Hyundai company on heavy price before two days of the marriage due to non-delivery of the same by OP No.2 inspite of receiving of earnest money/advance Booking amount of the car which is admittedly a deficiency in service as well as an unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2.  Further the contention of OP No.2 that since they had refunded the booking amount  to the complainant, so, there is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on their part,  is also not tenable  because if OP No.2 has failed to deliver the booked car due to any reason, then he must have refunded  the booking amount of Rs.10,000/- on 27.01.2016 or within 2/3 days to the complainant but he did not bother to  make refund of the same till the receipt of notice of  present complaint which is also an admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 and thus the complainant as a  mark of protest did not encashed the said DD till the  decision of the complaint which requires revalidation by OP No.2.

7.                In view of  the facts discussed above, we have no hesitation in holding that Op No.2 is deficient in providing proper services to the complainant.  As such, the present complaint is accepted against Op No.2 only with a direction to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of Booking amount  i.e. 17.01.2015 to till its realization. However, OP No.2 can take the original  DD No.206106 dated 30.05.2015 drawn at ICICI Bank Shahbad from Assistant of the Forum under proper receipt and Assistant of the  Forum  is directed to handover the same to OP No.2 after retaining photocopy of the same on the court file.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony & litigation charges etc.

                             Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP No.2 within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall attract further simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is allowed in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced: 08.02.2016                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                                  (A.K. SARDANA)

                                   PRESIDENT       

 

                                Sd/-    

                                  (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                          MEMBER