Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/132

Surjeet Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mehta Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh Chauhan

28 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

          C.C. No. :                 132 of 2019   

          Date of Institution:      13.05.2019

          Date of Decision:        28.01.2020

 

Surjeet Gupta aged about 58 years wife of K C Jindal r/o Gali No. 4, Guru Nanak Colony, Faridkot, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1.     Mehta Motors, Farid Enclave, Near Shahi Haveli, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot through its Managing Director c/o Amarjeet Mehta, c/o Hotel Gold Star, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda.

2.     Mehta Motors, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda 151001 through its Managing Director c/o Amarjeet Mehta, c/o Hotel Gold Star, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda.

3.     Tata Motors Ltd, 4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, 82 Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai 400093 through its Managing Director.

                         ....Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                    Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

 

cc no.-132 of 2019

 

Present:      Sh Gurpreet Singh Chauhan, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Avtar Krishan, Ld Counsel for OP-3,

                  OP-1 and 2 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to refund the booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/- and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant and her husband got booked two Tata Nano Cars on 21.04.2009 vide UIN 112692054 and 112692055 and paid Rs.1,40,000/-each through cheques. Delivery of cars was scheduled to be in April-June, 2010 through OP-2 by way of draw of lots through successful person. Complainant became successful in draw, but her husband could not win the draw and therefore, OPs refunded Rs.1,40,000/-to him on 22.07.2009. Thereafter, complainant received a letter dated 26.06.2010 vide which it was informed that in case complainant does not complete all formalities within one month of receipt of letter, then, Tata Motors reserve their right to revoke the booking and refund the booking amount. Complainant opted to not to take delivery and

cc no.-132 of 2019

vide letter dated 21.08.2010 requested OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,40,000/-paid by her to Ops on account of booking amount. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not refunded the booking amount to complainant and have been delaying  the matter on one pretext or the other, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade  mal practice and it has caused huge harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 15.05.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                      OP-3 filed reply wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-3 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable in present form and asserted that they have already refunded the amount of Rs.1,40,000/-to OP-1 on 27.04.2010. Moreover, complaint filed by complainant is time barred as complainant got booked Nano Car with them in year 2009 and she has filed the present complaint after a period of more than ten years. Answering OP does its

cc no.-132 of 2019

business on principal to principal basis and for the act of one opposite party, answering OP cannot be made liable for that. It is further averred that complainant is not the consumer of OP-3, rather she was their prospective buyer, who did not avail their services and therefore, complaint is not maintainable against them on this ground also. However, on merits, It is admitted that complainant got booked said car from them but denied all the other allegations being wrong and incorrect. OP-3 stressed mainly on the point that grievance of complainant is for non refund of booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, which has already been refunded by answering OP to complainant through OP-1. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                        Notice containing copy of complaint and other relevant documents was sent to OP-1 and OP-2, but as per office report it has not received back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. It is presumed that OP-1 and 2 have been duly served and sufficient knowledge of complaint, but despite repeated calls, no body appeared in the Forum on date fixed either in person or through counsel on behalf of OP-1 and 2 and therefore, vide order dated 1.10.2019, both OP-1 and OP-2 were proceeded against exparte.

 

cc no.-132 of 2019

6                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-6 and documents Ex C-1 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                              To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sharmendra Chaudhary Ex OP-3/1 and document Ex OP-3/2 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-3.

8                                                        From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OP-3, it is observed that case of complainant is that complainant and her husband got booked two Tata Nano Cars on 21.04.2009 and paid Rs.2,80,000/- through two cheques worth Rs.1,40,000/-each. Delivery was scheduled to be in April-June, 2010 by way of draw of lots through successful person. Complainant became successful in draw, but her husband could not win the draw and therefore, OPs refunded Rs.1,40,000/- to him on 22.07.2009. It is submitted that complainant received a letter dated 26.06.2010 vide which it was informed that in case complainant does not complete all formalities within one month of receipt of letter, then, Tata Motors reserve their right to revoke the booking and booking amount would be refunded. Complainant opted to not to take delivery and vide letter dated 21.08.2010 requested

cc no.-132 of 2019

OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,40,000/-paid by her as booking amount. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not refunded the booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. It amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to her. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint. There is no rebuttal from OP- 1 and OP-2 as they did not appear in the Forum and were proceeded against exparte. In reply, OP-3 denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. OP-3 stressed mainly on the point that they have already refunded the booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/-to OP-1 and there is nothing left to be done on their part. OP-3 brought before the Forum document Ex OP-3/2 that proves the fact that OP-3 paid Rs.1,40,000/- on account of advance booking of Nano Car to Mehta Motors/OP-1 on 26.04.2010 and  thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

10                                   To prove his pleadings ld counsel for complainant brought our attention to documents Ex C-1 and Ex C-2 which are copies of application form for Tata Nano Booking that clearly indicate that complainant and her husband got booked two Nano cars through form numbers112692054 and 112692055. Through bank account statement for the period from 1.04.2009 to 31.03.2011 Ex C-3 pleadings of complainant are further proved that payment for booking of said Nano cars was made through two separate cheques worth Rs.1,40,000/-each through joint bank account of complainant and her husband lying in State

cc no.-132 of 2019

Bank of India. Ex C-4 is copy of letter dated 26.06.2010 issued by Ops to complainant that explains the point that in case complainant does not complete formalities, her booking would be revoked and booking amount got deposited by her with OPs would be refunded to her. Grievance of complainant is further proved through letter dated 21.08.2010 written by her to OPs, wherein she made several requests for refunding the booking amount of  Rs.1,40,000/-. Through her affidavit Ex C-6, she has narrated and reiterated her grievance and made request for granting justice.                    

11                         We have thoroughly gone through the file and carefully perused all the documents placed on record by complainant and OP-3. It is admitted case that complainant got booked Nano car with OP-3. It is also admitted that she paid Rs.1,40,000/- through cheque as advance booking amount. There is no denial to the fact that complainant won the draw of lots and thereafter, she wrote letter for cancellation of booking of said car. Grievance of complainant is that despite expiry of more than eight years, she has not received back booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/-to Ops which Ops were required to refund her at the time of cancellation of said booking. OPs have been delaying refund on false pretexts. From the careful  perusal of document Ex OP-3/2, there remains no doubt to the averment made by OP-3 in their written statement that they have already refunded the advance booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/-to OP-1 on 26.04.2010. Thus, nothing is left to be done on the part of OP-3 as it has already refunded the amount in dispute to OP-1 and OP-2 for further

cc no.-132 of 2019

refunding the same to complainant. It is inappropriate on the part of OP-1 and 2 in retaining the amount of the Rs.1,40,000/-, which was given back by OP-3 to them as refund for complainant. OP-1 and OP-2 illegally retained the huge amount of Rs.1,40,000/-with them and did not refund the same to complainant and deprived her of interest accrued on said  amount. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP-1 and OP-2.

12                                     From the above discussion and keeping in view the documents and evidence placed on record by respective parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1  and OP-2 in not refunding the booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/-to complainant which they received from OP-3, due to which complainant had to suffer huge harassment and mental agony. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 and OP-2. OP-1 and OP-2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,40,000/-to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 26.04.2010 when OP-3 refunded this amount to OP-1. OP-1 and OP-2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her alongwith Rs.3,000/-for litigation expenses incurred by her. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. As OP-3 has already made refund of booking

cc no.-132 of 2019

amount therefore, complaint against OP-3 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 28.01.2020

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

                            Member                               President