Haryana

Ambala

CC/203/2016

Smt Seema - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ekansh Wheels - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Gupta Representative

28 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 203 of 2016

Date of Institution: 06.05.2016

Date of Decision: 28.06.2017

 

Smt. Seema, W/o Sh. Navneet Gupta, House No.2660-B, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh

                                                                                         ...................Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Eakansh Wheels, Ambala Chandigarh Highway Near Passport Office, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City-134003 (through its Branch Manager)
2. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (NEXA), Nelson Mandela Road, Basant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 being head office (through its Proprietor)                      

                                                                                ...................Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SHRI D. N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

        SHRI PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:    Complainant in person

                  OPs already ex-parte

 

ORDER

PER ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

1.                  Smt. Seema, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Eakansh Wheels & others/Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the “OPs”). Brief facts of the case are that the complainant got a vehicle booked with OP No.1 through its Relationship Manager on 23.12.2015 for Car Model No. Baleno, Variant Sigma, Petrol, Colour Granite Grey vide Booking Requisition Form dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure C-1). For the purpose of booking, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.11,000/- vide Receipt No. REC15000848 dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure C-2). It is averred by the complainant that the OP No.1 assured the complainant that the delivery of the vehicle would be made within 6-8 weeks. The complainant purportedly approached the OP No.1 a number of times after lapse of maximum 8-week period but the OP No.1 went on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Also the complainant ostensibly lodged complaint with the Customer Care Centre of OP No.1 on 06.03.2016 and 26.03.2016 but to no avail. Thereafter, OP No.1 responded via e-mail dated 07.03.2016 (Annexure C-3) to the complaint lodged with it by regretting for the inconvenience caused to the complainant due to delay in delivery of car.
2.                  OP No.1 delivered the vehicle on 20.05.2016 i.e. after the date of institution of complaint before this forum on 06.05.2016. By not delivering the vehicle within the stipulated time (6-8 weeks from the date of booking), the prices of the vehicle have soared to a great extent. On the date of booking i.e. 23.12.2015, the Ex-Showroom Price of the abovesaid car was Rs.498149/-, Insurance Cost was Rs.17790/- (as per Annexure C-4) and Registration Charges were Rs.29890/- (as per UT Admn. Transport Department, Registration Charges), thereby making up total cost on road of the said vehicle to be Rs.545829/-. Thereafter from 01.03.2016, the Ex-Showroom Price of the abovesaid car was increased to Rs.514321/-, Insurance Cost was increased to Rs.18383/- (as per Annexure C-5) and Registration Charges were increased to Rs.30860/- (as per UT Admn. Transport Department, Registration Charges), thereby increasing total cost on road of the said vehicle from Rs.545829/- to Rs.563564/-. As such, the complainant was constrained to shell out Rs.17735/- more for the above said vehicle for no reason of her fault. Had the delivery of the above said vehicle been made in stipulated time, the complainant would have seen saved from incurring unwarranted expenditure. Further, the complainant was bereft from the fruitful enjoyment of his investment for more than 4 months from the stipulated time as agreed between the parties.
3.                  We have heard the complainant and have also perused the case file.
4.                  First and foremost, we are inclined to see whether the delay in delivery of vehicle after its booking to the consumer which ultimately led the consumer/complainant to pay extra amount on account of rise of price of the vehicle in the meantime, would constitute unfair trade practice or at least deficiency in service. This question was squarely covered in Om Prakash vs. Asstt. Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and Anr. [1994 (3) SCC 504] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to Section 2(1)(r)(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 held that if a trader intentionally delays the delivery of any goods to the consumer, because of which the consumer suffers, it shall amount to an unfair method or unfair practice adopted by the trader; and even if the complaint regarding the delayed supply of goods, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may not be covered by Section 2(1)(c)(i), it shall amount to deficiency in service by the respondent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is well-known that many of the traders having advance information, or on speculation regarding the rise in the price of different articles, in order to avail the increase in the price, withhold the supply of different goods or articles to the consumers. In this process they cause loss or damage to consumers by making them to pay the excess price which they would not have been compelled to pay, if the goods or articles had been supplied in time. The object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to save the consumer from such unfair conduct and practice of the traders also.    
5.                  In view of the above discussion, we observe that obviously, the consumer cannot be made to pay for the default of OPs if during this unauthorised delay, the price of the vehicle had gone up. Had the OPs conformed to both the letter and spirit of the agreement between the parties, no such situation would have arisen.  Since, no substantive proof has been tendered to show that OPs have intentionally played delaying tactics to raise the cost of the goods, we are of the view that the instant case does not fall under Section2(1)(c)(i), but invariably fall under the clutches of Section Section2(1)(c)(iii). Consequently, bracing upon the aforesaid verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we come to the irresistible conclusion that there is a clear deficiency of service on the part of OPs in the present case. Since the OP No.1 is authorised dealer of OP No.2, the relationship of principal agent applies and as such OP Nos.1 & 2 are jointly liable for the default.
6.                  For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed with costs and the OP Nos.1 & 2 are hereby jointly and severally directed to comply with the following direction within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order:-

1. To pay Rs.17,735/-, i.e. price difference between the dates of booking and delivery, to the complainant along  with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of booking i.e. 23.12.2015 till realization. If the OPs failed to pay the above said amount within stipulated period then they will pay the interest @ 18% per annum; and
2. To pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- towards harassment and mental agony; and
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

                        Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to the record room.

Announced on: 28.06.2017

 

PUSHPENDER KUMAR                ANAMIKA GUPTA                            D.N. ARORA

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

ANAMIKA GUPTA

         MEMBER