Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1751/2017

RASHMI JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MANISH KAUSHIK

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

N THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :13.11.2017

Date of Decision :15.11.2017

Complaint No.1751/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Ms. Rashmi Jain,

W/o. Shri V.K. Jain,

R/o. W-76, Greater Kailash,

Part-2, New Delhi-110048.                                                                        ……Complainant

                                                                        Versus

1.Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd.,

At:E-3, MIDC Chakan Phase-III,

Chakan Indl. Area, Kuruli & Nighoje,

Taluka : Khed Chakan,

Maharashtra-410501.

 

Also at C-4, Rajouri Garden,

Ring Road, Delhi-110027.                                                                        ….Opposite Party No.1

 

2.M/s. B.U. Bhandhari Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

101 Baner Mumbai- Bangalore Highway,

Pune-411045.                                                                                  ….Opposite Party No.2

 

3.Shri Deven Chandrsvadan Bhandari

Director of B.U. Bhandhari Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

Available - Bangalore Highway,

Pune-411045.                                                                                  ….Opposite Party No.3

 

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

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

 

Present:           Shri  Levish Sharma, Counsel for the complainant.

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

          Ms. Rashmi Jain, resident  of Delhi intending to buy a new Mercedes Benz car of 2016 make, approached the Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. And their dealer, hereinafter referred to as OP no.1 and 2 respectively. The OP no.2 in response thereto offered the said car of the Model of 2016 for the total sale consideration of Rs.50,94,650/- inclusive of registration and insurance. An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid on 24.06.16, Rs.5,94,650/- on 01.07.16 and remaining amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was entrusted to the OP no.1 for the purchase of car.

          The delivery of the car was done on 12.07.16. The OP no.2 had charged Rs.6,59,925/- towards registration and a copy of the RTO receipt towards the registration indicating the registration amount of Rs.5,88,538/- was issued which means an amount of Rs.70,837/- was charged more than due. The complainant has alleged that the OP having charged more registration fee than due has entered into an unfair trade practice. The further allegation of the complainant is that he has been supplied the 2015 Model car as against the booking done for the year 2016. The complainant had consequently approached the OP for refund of the additional amount charged for registration of the car as also for the replacement of the vehicle of the 2016 model for which he had infect applied. Despite the correspondence done in this behalf and legal notice issued on 24.02.17, nothing was done. The complainant has consequently filed this complaint before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying for the relief as under:-

                   (a)     Allow the present complaint.

(b)     Direct the OPs, their agents, associates, assigns to Immediately stop sale/ advertisement/ dealings of their services as they are indulging in unfair trade practices.

(c )    Direct the OPs to rectify the deficiency of services as mentioned in the present complaint and thereby direct the OPs to replace the Mercedes Benz E-250, DCI, Diesel Variant, 2015 model bearing registration number MH14FS1089 as sold by the OP to the complainant with the latest Mercedes Benz E-250 mode, CDI, Diesel Variant,

(d)     Direct the OP no.1 and 2, in alternative to refund the total amount paid by the complainant for the purchase of Mercedez Benz E-250, CDI, Diesel variant with an interest @24% per annum from the date of receipt of the money for the sale of the said car.

(e)     Direct eh OPs to refund the excess amount of Rs.70,837/- charged on the registration book charges to the complainant along with an interst @24% per annum from the date of receipt of the money of registration charges,

(f)      Direct the OPs to pay compensations of Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainant for deceptive acts, criminal misappropriation of complainants money and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice followed by them.

(g)     Direct the OP to pay an amount of R.1,00,000/- as legal expenses.

(h)     Pass any other order or claim, as deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

 

          The matter was listed before us for admission hearing on 13.11.17 when the ld. Counsel for the complainant appeared and advanced his arguments. We have perused the records.

          In the first instance we note that the vehicle so provided is defect free although the model is of the year 2015 (November) as apparent from the record. In the absence of any defect in the vehicle the only question that remains to be adjudicated is regarding the compensation to be paid. The compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- as claimed appears to be on the higher side. It is a trite law that the compensation sought for has to be reasonable, just and proper as held by the NCDRC and Apex court. We feel that prayer for compensation of an amount as claimed is only to invoke the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission. In our considered view the compensation claimed is on the high side. It appears to be out of proportion. It is neither just nor proper.

          The complainant has also prayed for replacement of the vehicle although no defect  in this behalf has been reported. This prayer according to us is not appropriate. The difference in the model is only one year, infact even less as the model is of November 2015 and the booking was for 2016. It does not call for the compensation of the amount as prayed for on this account.

          Having regard of the facts and circumstances of the case we order return of the complaint at the admission stage as the compensation claimed of Rs.20,00,000/- is neither just nor proper. The complainant may if she so desires modify the prayer for suitable compensation for delivering the car of 2015 model against the booking for the model of 2016 and seek redressal of her grievance regarding the undue payment towards registration charges before from the District Fora.

We order accordingly.

          Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.

File be consigned to records.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)