DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Amarpreet Singh Noorie son of Shri Mohinder Singh Noorie, House No. 145, Village Budhanpur, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

                    ---Complainants

Vs

[1]  M/s EM PEE Motors Limited, #177-H, Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its HOD Mr. Harminder Singh/ Authorized Signatory.

[2]  Ranjana Sharma, Sr. Sales Officer, M/s EM PEE Motors Limited, # 177-H, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Satinder Dhikkar, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Proxy Counsel for Sh. S.R. Bansal, Counsel for OPs.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.        The Complainant had booked one Toyota Innova 2.5 V (M) Grey Mica Metallic colour with the Opposite Party on 18.08.2011 vide Order No. ORD110001115. He had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide Cheque No. 154364 drawn on Canara Bank at the time of booking. The Complainant has stated that as at the time of booking, he had been assured of delivery within 15 days. He also deposited a sum of Rs.8,95,109/- vide Cheque dated 08.09.2011; Rs.29,335/- vide Cheque dated 13.09.2011 and Rs.2,70,665/- vide Draft No. 2773831. The vehicle had been financed from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services. 

          The Complainant has stated that thereafter, he visited the Opposite Parties a number of times to take the delivery of the vehicle, but he was always asked to wait for few days. The Complainant has also alleged that Innova vehicles were wrongly been delivered by the Opposite Parties to other people in his presence. Alleging unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, illegality and malafide intention of the Opposite Party in not delivering the vehicle despite receiving full payment, the Complainant has filed this complaint with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to deliver the vehicle, along with compensation and costs.

2.        After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the Opposite Parties.

3.        Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement have taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is false & frivolous. Further, no consumer dispute is made out, as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering Opposite Parties.

          On merits, the Opposite Parties have admitted receipt of the amount from the Complainant. Opposite Parties have further added that the vehicle is lying ready with them since November, 2011, but the Complainant has not turned up to take the delivery of the vehicle. As this was the agreed date, hence non-delivery is not a fault of the Opposite Parties. While denying all other allegations, the Opposite Parties have denied the promise about the date of delivery of vehicle by 30.09.2011.

4.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.        The allegations of the Complainant are with regard to non-delivery of the booked vehicle by the Opposite Parties, as per their commitment. Receipts of payments made to the Opposite Parties are on the record. The Opposite Parties have also placed on record a commitment check list issued to the Complainant, duly signed by the Complainant, in which the time of delivery has been given as November, 2011. The Opposite Parties have contended that they were willing to hand over the vehicle to the Complainant in November, 2011, itself. Interestingly, the Complainant has not given any reason why he did not go to take delivery of the vehicle as per the committed time given by the Opposite Parties. He has also not placed on record any document in which there is a commitment to him for delivery of the vehicle within 15 days. Hence, the allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service do not seem to be plausible. Even at the time of arguments, the Opposite Parties stated at bar that the Complainant is free to take delivery of the vehicle at any time. In our opinion, perhaps, the Complainant is not willing to take the delivery of the vehicle, at this stage.

7.        Also, the allegations by the Complainant for harassment, mental tension, agony, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice are not acceptable without cogent evidence or proof of the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LTD. V AJAY KUMAR, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 504, has held as under: -

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Ss. 14(1)(d), 18 and 22(1) – Compensation – Condition precedent for grant of compensation, held, is loss or injury suffered due to negligence of the Opposite Party – In the absence of allegation or material on record to show negligence, grant of compensation, held, improper – More so when there was no allegation or finding of loss or injury caused to the Complainant.”

          In GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V BALBIR SINGH, (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: -

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Ss. 14(d) and proviso thereto, 18 [as amended in 2002] and 22(1) [as amended in 2002] – Compensation – Principles of award of – Held, since what is being awarded is a recompense for loss or injury, it therefore necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with amount of loss or injury.”

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also held in Indian medical association v. V.P.Santha and other, (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651, that Section 14(1)(d) indicates that compensation to be awarded is for loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to negligence of the Opposite Party.

8.        In the present case, it is the Complainant himself, who has not turned up to take the delivery of the vehicle in November, 2011. The Opposite Parties have stated that the vehicle is ready for delivery.

9.        In the given situation, we deem it appropriate to dispose off the present complaint, with a direction to the Complainant to accept the delivery of the vehicle from the Opposite Parties forthwith. Opposite Parties shall hand over the possession of the booked vehicle to the Complainant as soon as he visits their premises and makes a request for the same.

          As there is no prayer for refund of the amount or interest accrued thereon, orders to this effect cannot be passed. However, in case the Complainant is not willing to take the vehicle, the parties may amicably settle the matter between themselves for refund and interest. No costs.

10.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09^th August, 2012.                                      Sd/-    

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER