DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.516/2008
Dr. Chandra Bhan Jatav
Room No.-105,
Resident Doctor’s Hostel,
J.P.N. Apex Trauma Centre AIIMS,
Raj Nagar New Delhi-110029 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Ms/ Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.
(through its Manager)
GF-7, 3C’s Complex,
15, Feroze Gandhi Marg
Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi-110024
2. Maruti Udyog Ltd.
6th Floor, Hansalaya Building
15, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 18.08.08 Date of Order : 26.08.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that he decided to buy a Maruti Swift car. The OP No.1’s representative assured him that the same will be delivered in a few days and he has a liberty to change the model, colour etc. before delivery of the car. He paid Rs.10,000/- to the OP No.1 vide cheque No. 178122 dated 05.03.08 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and the same was duly received by the OP No.1. He came to know regarding the new model namely Swift Dzino LXI S of silver colour to be challenged by the OP No.2. Being a new model having better facility he immediately contacted the OP No.1 on 26.03.08 to change the model. The OP No.1 assured him that the delivery will be made within a week and advised him to deposit the price. He immediately applied for car loan from HDFC Bank and the same was sanctioned and amount of Rs.339575/- was deposited with the OPs on 31.05.08. It is submitted that he had deposited the entire amounts on different dates till 04.07.2008 and the OP No.1 issued the receipts. He “made the payment of Rs.589575/- on 31/05/08 and it was assured to the same that the rest payment to be made at the time of delivery of the said” but he was made to deposit the entire amount. The complainant called several times to the OPs and personally visited their office regarding delivery of the vehicle on urgent basis but the OPs failed to do so on one pretext or the other. It is stated that “the complainant has incurring an extra expenses of Rs.500/- on daily basis on hiring taxies and autos etc due to deliberate act of the opposite parties.” The OP No.1 on 31.07.08 sent a letter to him whereby it was stated that the said vehicle booked by him was expected to be delivered by the OP No.2 on 07.07.08 but they are able to dispatch the same and, therefore, the OP No.1 is not able to deliver the same to the complainant. Hence, it tantamounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complaint has been filed for the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OPs to immediate deliver car bearing model number “Swift Dzino LXI S. of Silever colour” to the complainant,
- Direct the OPs to pay interest at the rate of 18% from the date of receiving consideration from the complainant till the actual date of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant as charge by the bank against the loan sanctioned to the complainant,
- Direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per day to the complainant from the date of receiving consideration from the complainant till the actual delivery of the above said vehicle as the complainant has incurred the said expenses on hiring taxes etc.,
- Direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards the mental agony and physical harassment suffered due to the deficient acts of OPs, and
- Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost.
OP No.1 in the written statement has inter-alia stated the complaint is in respect of delivery of the vehicle which was delivered on 25.08.08 and, hence, main grievance of the complainant has become infructuous and so this complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is stated that the complainant booked the Maruti Swift LXI (IMMOB) –E3 gray on 05.03.08 by making a payment of Rs.10,000/- and the same was acknowledged vide receipt No. 4545. It is denied that the vehicle was to be delivered to the complainant in few days but it was to be delivered within 2-3 months as its waiting period was 2-3 months. It is admitted that the OP No.1’s representative assured him to change the model. The complainant changed the model on 31.03.08 from Swift to Swift Desire by making an application dated 31.03.08. It is denied that the complainant had made the payment of Rs.589575/- on 31.05.08 but the complainant deposited Rs.479575/- which was received from the complainant upto 04.07.08. It is stated that “while the representative of the OP-1 tried his best to deliver the vehicle in the month of July but as the long waiting list as well as non delivery of the vehicle as expected, it could not be possible to deliver the vehicle in the month of July. It is also wrong and denied that the complainant had incurred an extra expense of Rs.500/- on daily basis on hiring taxies and autos etc. it is not deliberate act of the OP-1.” The vehicle was delivered on 25.08.08 and balance amount of Rs.15600/- was received from the complainant vide two receipts of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.600/- dated 25.08.08. After delivery of the vehicle the complainant also furnished a satisfactory note dated 26.08.08 to the OP No.1. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.2 in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant is not a consumer as defined u/s 2 (1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant neither bought the vehicle in question under any contract for sale with OP No.2 nor hired any service for consideration. The OP No.2 was not a privity of sale transaction in question. The complainant is not entitled for compensation u/s 14 (1) d) of the Act as he has failed to place any material on record in order to substantiate his claim for compensation against OP No.2. The complainant did not have any transaction of sale/purchase with the OP No.2 and the complainant has no cause of action against the OP No.2. It is submitted that the vehicle has already been delivered to the complainant to his entire satisfaction on 26.08.08 by the OP No.1. The satisfactory note was duly signed by the complainant. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of the OPs.
In the rejoinder to reply of OP No.1 with regard to signing of a satisfactory note by him the complainant has stated that “ the said note was malafidely signed by the OP in routine manner with other paper at the time of delivery of the vehicle which is apparent from the facts that the alleged satisfactory note neither mention the nature of complaint nor explanation regarding resolving the same.”
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Pramod Parsad Aggarwal, Company Secretary of OP No. 1 and affidavit of Sh. Surender Kr., Sr. Manager (Law) on behalf of the OP No.2 have been field in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
OP No.2 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 01.07.2011.
Written arguments have been field on behalf of the complainant and OP No.1.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP No.1 and have also carefully gone through the record.
It is not in dispute that the complainant had applied for Maruti Swift car from the OP No.1 on 05.03.2008. The complainant decided to buy a Maruti Swift Desire car and filed an application for change of car on 31.03.08. The OP No.1 has filed a commitment checklist dated 05.03.08 as Annexure R-2/2 wherein it is shown that the likely date of delivery of the vehicle will be 25.08.08. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 25.08.08 itself and the complainant filled and signed the satisfaction report dated 26.08.08 copy of which is Annexure-F. It clearly shows that while taking the delivery the complainant was satisfied and he had not recorded any adverse remark on the remark column in Annexure-F. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 26.08.17.
