Punjab

Rupnagar

RBT/CC/18/77

Gurmit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Benchmark Motors Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder S. Adv

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUEMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL CONSUMER, CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA

                                                                             RBT/CC/ No. 77 of 2018

                                                                             Date of Institution: 2.2.2018

                                                                             Date of Decision: 02.01.2023

Gurmit Singh son of Sh. Gurcharan Singh, resident of 90-A, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana

                                                            …. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s Benchmark Motors Private Limited, Ferozepur Road, Ner Octroi Post, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director/Director/CEO

ALSO AT:-

M/s Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd, Hirabagh, Rajpura Road, Patiala, through its Managing Director/Director/CEO

2. M/s Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd. Goniana Road, Bathinda, through   its  Managing  Director/ Director / CEO.

……Opposite Parties

                   Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM:

                             SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:-

                             Sh. Yadwinder  Singh , Adv. for complainant

                             OP No.1 ex-parte

Sh.  Rajeev Abhi , Adv. for OP2.

ORDER:-  

SH. RANJIT SINGH , PRESIDENT

1.   The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant the complainant had booked KWID Card with the OP No. 2 at their Ludhiana Office on 01/06/2016 and had paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash as booking amount. At the time of booking, the OP No. 2 had assured the complainant that this amount will be adjusted in the final price. The OP No. 2 had also assured the complainant that the OP No. 2 will deliver the said car within 40 days from the date of booking, as per requirements of the complainant and receipt no. 308-S dated 01/06/2016 was issued to the complainant. Thereafter, even after the expiry of 40 days, the OP No. 2 failed to supply the car to the complainant and thereafter, after six month, the OP No.2 called the complainant to inform as the OP No. 2 had transferred/sold its Renault Agency to M/s Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd. Thus complainant will be supplied car by the said M/s Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd. and advanced amount will be adjusted. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP No. 1 at their Ludhiana Showroom and gave them the booking details and thereafter on 8^th February, 2017 the complainant was sold a car KWID RXT 1.0 PETROL COLOR GREY, vide invoice no. 0420/2016-17 dated 08/02/2017, after receipt of full and final amount of the car. The complainant protested and asked the sale officer to deduct the amount of Rs. 20000/- i.e. booking amount form the total value of the car i.e. Rs. 3,98,180/- but the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the booking amount of Rs. 20000/- will be sent directly to bank account of the complainant through RTGS as the OP to bank account of the complainant through RTGS. It is further averred that the complainant had purchased the car from Ludhiana showroom of the OP No. 1, but the OP No.1 supplied the complainant with the retail invoice the office of the OP No. 1 at Ludhiana and requested them to return the said booking amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant, but the OP No.1 dilly delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and now has failed to make the payment of the said amount, alongwith interest.  The Ludhiana office of OP No. 1 is on the same place where the office of OP No. 2 was situated and most of the employee with the OP No. 2, are now the employees of the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 intentionally and willfully refusing to return the booking amount of Rs. 20000/- received by the OP No. 2. Both the OP intentionally and deliberately avoiding to provide service and are backing out of their promises made at the time of booking of the car.  Then, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 03/08/2017 through his counsel Sh. G.S. Ghuman, Advocate and the notice were sent on 10/08/2017 to the OP. But despite service of notice the OP failed to adhere to the genuine request of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant sought the following reliefs:-

1.  To return the booking amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the compliant along with interest @ 18 % from the date of booking.

2. To pay Rs. 10000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony and physical harassment

3. To pay a sum of Rs. 5500/- as legal expenses to the complainant.

4. Any other additional or alternative relief to which he complainant is found entitled to by this Hon’ble Commission.

2.     Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OPs has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is barred  u/s 26 of the consumer protection Act as no company in  the name of  M/s Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd . ever existed. It is padam Cars Pvt. Ltd, which was in operation at Ludhiana at the time of booking of the car; that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the consumer protection Act qua OP No. 2 as the complainant has booked KWID car with OP No. 2 on payment of booking amount of Rs. 20,000/- on account of business losses, the OP No.2 had surrendered/ transferred/sold its  Renault Agency  to OP No.1 M/s Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd, who is to honor all the booking of  KWID Car which booked by OP No. 2 earlier after giving due adjustment of the booking amount of Rs. 20,000/- OP No.1 has failed to abide by the said undertaking given to OP No . 2. The complainant was informed the said fact that the complainant will be supplied car by OP No.1 against the aforesaid booking and the OP No.1 will adjust the booking amount of Rs. 20,000/- out of the total sale of the car. Thereafter till filling of the complainant. The OP No.1 has never called upon the complainant that no adjustment of booking amount of Rs.20,000/- has been given by OP No.1 neither any legal notice has been served  upon OP No. 2 nor any request in writing or verbally was made to OP No. 2 for the non-adjustment of booking amount of Rs. 20,000/- by OP No. 1 out of the invoice value as the OP No.2 is not working at the invoice value as the OP No. 2 is not working at the address given in the legal notice. Only on going through the copy of the complaint received from the Hon’ble forum through the copy of the complainant received  from the Hon’ble Forum that the answering OP no. 2 came to know about the non-adjustment of the booking amount out of the invoice value by OP no. 1 and as such though OP no. 2 is not liable yet OP no. 2 herby pa the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant by virtue of the draft of the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant by virtue of the draft of the said eventuality. Had OP no. 2 not suffered financial loss or closed his business, then such situation is due to the above said eventuality. The complainant had already received the cheque of Rs. 20,000/- form OPno. 2 in March, 2017 as per the details given but the same has not been encashed till date for the details given but the same has not been encashed reasons best known to the complainant; that the present complainant is not maintainable since complicated question of law and facts is involved which require elaborate evidence both oral and documentary and it only civil court of competent jurisdiction who can try and decide the present complaint. The complaint cannot be decided by the hon’ble Forum of summary manner; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct form filing the present complainant as the complainant is not coming to the hon’ble forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the hon’ble forum that OP no. 2 is not liable to refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and as such the complainant is not entitled to the discretionary relief form his hon’ble forum; that the present complaint is time barred having been filed after the expiry of period of limitation; that the Hon’ble Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted to the extent of booking of KWID car with the OPNo.2 and payment of Rs. 20,000/- as booking amount but rest of the para is denied and wrong. It is denied that at the time of booking, the OP no. 2 had assured the complainant that this amount will be adjusted in the final price. It is denied that the OP no. 2 had also assured the complainant that the OP no. 2 will deliver the said car within 40 days from the date of booking as per requirement of the complainant . it is submitted that the complainant has booked KWID car with OP no. 2 on payment of booking amount of Rs. 20,000/- OPno.2. The complainant was informed the said fact that the complainant will be supplied car by OP no. 1 against the aforesaid booking and the OPno.1 will adjust the booking amount of Rs. 20,000/- out of the total sale of the car. Thereafter till the fling of the complaint, the OP no. 1 has never called upon the complainant that no adjustment of booking amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been served upon OP no. 2 nor any request in writing or verbally was made to OP no. 2 for the non-adjustment of booking amount of Rs. 20,000 by OP no. 1 out of the invoice value as the OP no. 2 is not working at the address given in the legal notice. Only on going through the copy of the complaint received from the Hon’ble forum that the answering OP no. 2 came to know about the non-adjustment of the booking amount out of the invoice value by OP no. 1 and as such though RTGS as the OP had all the details of bank of the complainant, as the complainant had made the payment of said car through RTGS. Rest of the allegations leveled by the complainant against the OPs have been denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.       The leaned counsel for the parties have placed on record the documents along with affidavits in support of their version.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record file, carefully.

5. After perusing the evidence led by both the parties, it is evident that the complainant the complainant had booked KWID Card with the OP No. 2 at their Ludhiana Office on 01/06/2016 and had paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash as booking amount. At the time of booking, the OP No. 2 had assured the complainant that this amount will be adjusted in the final price. The OP No. 2 had also assured the complainant that the OP No. 2 will deliver the said car within 40 days from the date of booking, as per requirements of the complainant and receipt no. 308-S dated 01/06/2016 was issued to the complainant. Thereafter, even after the expiry of 40 days, the OP No. 2 failed to supply the car to the complainant and thereafter, after six month, the OP No.2 called the complainant to inform as the OP No. 2 had transferred/sold its Renault Agency to M/s Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd. Thus complainant will be supplied car by the said M/s Benchmark Motors Pvt.  Ltd. and advanced amount will be adjusted. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP No. 1 at their Ludhiana Showroom and gave them the booking details and thereafter on 8^th February, 2017 the complainant was sold a car KWID RXT 1.0 PETROL COLOR GREY, vide invoice no. 0420/2016-17 dated 08/02/2017, after receipt of full and final amount of the car. The complainant protested and asked the sale officer to deduct the amount of Rs. 20000/- i.e. booking amount form the total value of the car i.e. Rs. 3,98,180/- but the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the booking amount of Rs. 20000/- will be sent directly to bank account of the complainant through RTGS as the OP to bank account of the complainant through RTGS. But the OP No.2 has failed to do so.

6. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint with the directions to the OP2 to return the amount of Rs.20,000/- as booking price along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of depositing the said amount with the OP2 by the complainant. The OP2 is further directed to pay a consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.  The OPs are directed to comply with the said order within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.

Announced

January 02, 2023

(Ranjit Singh)

PRESIDENT

•  

                                   

 

(Ranvir Kaur)

MEMBER

•