| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No. 297/2019
Mr. V.K. Shali
A-8, Pamposh Enclave G.K-I, New Delhi-110048 ….Complainant Versus M/s Eagle Auto Limited. Ms. Niharika Mr. Mr Rajiv Sharma Ms. Nirmala (all working at C-89, Lower Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi-110024 (India) ….Opposite Parties Date of Institution : 17.10.2019 Date of Order : 03.04.2023 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi - Complainant has requested to pass an award directing M/s Eagle Auto Ltd., etc (hereinafter referred to as OP 1 to 4 respectively) (i) to pay loss of interest @ 8% on Rs. 15,61,000/-for the period of two months; (ii) to pay loss of interest on 1,61,000/- which was paid much later; (iii) to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- being difference in the CSD price of Toyota Altis G Model and price of said vehicle in open market; (iv) to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lac towards mental torture & harassment etc.
- Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The Complainant was appointed in the Armed Forces Tribunal for the period of 4 years or till the attaining of age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. Hence the Complainant was to retire on 14.06.2019 on attaining the age of 65 years. The members of the Armed Forces Tribunal are given the facility of making purchases of groceries and other white goods including motor vehicle in accordance with extant Rules. As per Rules, this facility is available only once in four years for the members & President of the Armed Forces Tribunal. So, the Complainant decided to purchase the vehicle on CSD rates. As per procedure, the Complainant could purchase the vehicle through accredited agents who are registered with CSD. In the process, M/s Eagle Auto Ltd. was contacted and Ms. Niharika came in contact on behalf of M/s Eagle Auto Ltd. and visited the office of the Complainant. She helped the Complainant in collecting the information such as model & rates of various vehicles as per CSD & that of market. The Complainant decided to purchase Toyota Altis G Model which was costing around Rs. 16 lac as per CSD rates and Rs. 19.50 lac in the open market. As such, the Complainant could have saved around Rs. 3 or 3.50 lac. Ms. Niharika, somewhere in April/May-2019 got in touch with Complainant. She assured that she would try to broker the best possible deal in the market by allowing the discounts and other benefits such as accessories, etc. In the first week of May 19, she came to the office of Complainant and got the forms filled in and other documents including CSD cards. The Complainant gave a cheque of Rs. one lac for booking the vehicle. The Complainant also offered to sell his wife’s Santro Car and requested to adjust the same. In the process, she took the cheques of Rs. 9 lac + 5 lac + 61,000/- on different dates of April/May-2019. It was assured that the subject vehicle had been booked and would be delivered once the formalities are completed. The cheques were got encashed on 15/16 May-2019, however Ms. Niharika kept changing the delivery dates. This made him suspicious whether-the amount had been deposited with CSD. It was found that the cheques were to be made in the name of CSD instead of the dealer/agent. Since M/s Eagle Auto Ltd. was an agent of CSD, it was in her know that cheques are to be taken in the name of M/s CSD only. From the very beginning, the dealer/agent had adopted unfair trade practice. Ultimately, the Complainant requested for refund and reached the office of OP-1. She had failed to complete the process of delivery of the vehicle whereas all the requisite amount stood paid to the agents i.e. M/s Eagle Auto Ltd. - In the meanwhile, Chief of Army Staff issued an order restricting the purchase of vehicle through CSD upto 12 lac. As such, the Complainant was bereft of the purchase of subject vehicle. It was learnt that the vehicle from CSD cannot be purchased at this stage as the Complainant had demitted the office on 14.06.2019. The Complainant with great difficulty could get the cheque on 29.06.2019 for the said amount. It was stated by OP that cheques may be presented on 6th July, 2019. Before the cheques could have been presented, she transferred Rs. 14 lac in the account of the Complainant to avoid criminal liability. Thus, it would be seen from the above discussion that the Complainant had cheated and caused wrongful loss to the Complainant and wrongful gain to herself. Hence, the complaint.
- Notice was served to OP on 04.12.2019 and since then, none has put up an appearance. It was again considered appropriate to issue Notice to the OP in the interest of justice due to Covid pandemic. Notice was served again on 02.11.2021. The counsel for the Complainant filed an affidavit confirming the service of Notice. The Commission vide its order dated 04.07.2022 proceeded exparte against OP. Thereafter the Complainant filed evidence and written submission. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
- This Commission has gone into the entire material placed on record. Due consideration was given to the arguments. The moot question before the Commission is about the determination of the unfair trade practice adopted by OPs by which the OPs had caused wrongful gain to themselves. As such, the Complainant has maintained that the OPs are deficient in service.
- As discussed above, the OPs being the authorized dealer/agent of the CSD, must be aware of the procedure how to book the vehicle with CSD. But the OPs more particularly OP-2 representing OP-1, sought the cheques from the Complainant in the name of the M/s Eagle Auto Ltd. It goes to suggest that the OPs were harbouring dishonest intentions from the very beginning by way of seeking the cheques in the name of its company i.e. M/s Eagle Auto Ltd. The booking form with the cheque of Rs. one lac was also not submitted with CSD. OP-2 kept on lying that the delivery of the subject vehicle shall be handed over imminently. OPs were well aware that no delivery of vehicle is possible unless price of vehicle is deposited with CSD. Since the payment was not deposited with CSD even though the full payment of cost of subject vehicle was obtained from the Complainant in time under the unfair trade practice. The OPs took the cheques amount in the name of M/s Eagle Auto Ltd., the case falls squarely under the unfair trade practice as provided in the Section 2 (47).
“unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice…….” - The Complainant was bereft of the purchase of subject vehicle on account of deceitful manner. Had the OPs acted in faithful manner, the Complainant could have got the delivery of the vehicle well before the order dated 01.06.2019 of the Army Chief for restricting the value of vehicle to be available on CSD card and secondly, the Complainant demitted the office on account of attaining the age of 65 years on 14.06.2019. As such, the Complainant could not get the benefit of rebate of Rs. 3 lac/3.5 lac on the vehicle i.e. Toyota Altis G Model. The value of said vehicle was around 19 lac in the Market. Hence, the order of Army Chief restricted his choice. Had the OPs acted in proper manner, he would have got the delivery well before the restriction being issued on 01.06.2019.
- In view of above facts and circumstances in the case, this Commission is convinced that the OP-1 is short of obligation which amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the OP-1 is directed to pay the interest on the amount of Rs. 15,61,000/- for the period of two months @ 6% p.a. Further, the Complainant is also entitled to get the Rs. 3 lac being the difference in CSD price and price of subject vehicle in open market within 3 months from the receipt of this order failing which the rate of interest shall be levied @ 7% p.a. on the above mentioned amount till its realization. The other relief/request at (ii) & (iv) are not considered appropriate. Hence, these requests are rejected as amount of Rs. 1,61,000/- was also received but the Complainant did not specify the date when the amount was received back. Hence it is found vague.
Parties to be provided copy of order as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website. | |
