Delhi

North East

CC/126/2014

Sangeeta Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Harpreet Motors - Opp.Party(s)

11 Feb 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 126/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sangeeta Chopra C-21/Y-3, C- Block Dilshad Garden Delhi- 110095.	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Harpreet Ford Motors Pvt Ltd G-6, Dilshad Garden Metro Station New Delhi-110095.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

04.04.2014 11.02.2020 11.02.2020

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Shorn of unnecessary details, case of the complainant in the present complaint is that she had booked Ecosport D Trendz 1.5L Diesel Mars Red Car with OP on 04.08.2013 vide booking No. 3172616 on making a booking amount payment of Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter, on demand notice dated 16.02.2014 from OP for making the balance payment by end of February 2014 and assuring that the subject vehicle shall be delivered by March 2014, the complainant paid Rs. 8,11,103/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 04.03.2014 and Rs. 6,00,000/- (financed by State Bank of Patiala vide vehicle loan) on 08.03.2014 to OP thereby paying the entire consideration amount for the said vehicle by first week of March 2014 with expectation of delivery of vehicle by March 2014 end as assured by OP. The complainant also sold his existing car to accommodate the new one. However, despite being in receipt of the entire consideration amount of Rs. 9,31,108/-, OP failed to give the delivery of the subject vehicle within the promised stipulated period. The complainant wrote several e-mails to OP between 27.03.2014 to 31.03.2014 to enquire about the status of delivery of the car and exact date of its delivery but none of them was responded to by OP. Therefore, alleging deficiency of service on the part of OP for non delivery of the subject vehicle, the complainant filed the present complaint against OP praying for issuance of directions to immediately deliver the subject vehicle and call for records of OP detailing delivery of cars since the booking date of the complainant i.e. 04.08.2014 and from date of full and final payment of car receipt i.e. 08.03.2014. The complainant also prayed for adequate compensation, mental agony and financial suffering.

Complainant has attached copy of bank receipts dated 04.08.2013, 04.03.2014 and 08.03.2014 of payment made and acknowledged by OP for the subject vehicle, copy of demand letter dated 16.02.2014 issued by OP, copy of invoice dated 25.02.2014 of                  Rs. 9,19,103/- for the subject vehicle, copy of letter of arrangement dated 07.03.2014 issued by State Bank of Patiala in favor of complainant granting vehicle loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- and copy of e-mails dated 27.03.2014 and 31.03.2014.

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 09.04.2014. OP entered appearance and filed its written statement on 05.08.2014 vide which it submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable in view of the fact that the complainant has already received the delivery of the subject vehicle by signing the satisfaction note at the showroom of the OP and even otherwise as per the booking form signed by the complainant, OP had already clarified its stand that for any delay in the supply by the manufacturer, OP shall not held liable, therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to defence taken by OP whereby complainant submitted that she is fully entitled to the relief claimed since OP miserably failed to honour its commitment of time bound delivery of the vehicle booked by the complainant and has also failed to produce date wise documents of booking of vehicle from the date on which the complainant booked it and even the details of the same after the date of the complainant’s booking deliberately since OP has delivered vehicle out of turn to the other customers. The complainant stated that he had sent a series of mobile SMS to OP between 29.03.2014 to 30.04.2014 enquiring about the delivery date of the vehicle and also e-mails between 27.03.2014 to 13.05.2014 to OP but OP showed its continued indifference and non responsiveness to all the correspondence made by the complainant for this entire one and half month. Complainant submitted that OP vide letter dated 03.04.2014 acknowledged receipt of the entire consideration amount of Rs. 9,31,103/- from the complainant but admitted its failure to deliver the subject vehicle within the stipulated time due to slow production in the company and had assured delivery by 30.04.2014 but failed to honour its own commitment.  OP has attached copy of SMS sent to Mr. Aman, Mr. Gaurav and Mr. Praveen of OP and copy of e-mails sent to OP customer care between 27.03.2014 to 13.05.2014 and copy of letter dated 03.04.2014 by OP.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant exhibiting the documents relied upon / filed alongwith complaint and rejoinder and filed additional evidence vide which she placed on record copy of e-mail dated 29.03.2014 and 30.04.2014 by customer care of OP and Ford India acknowledging e-mails of complainant to them and copy of delivery receipt dated 25.05.2014 vide invoice No. VSLAE00108DG dated 22.05.2014 signed by complainant and Mr. Aman Chandra of OP in support of receipt / delivery of the subject vehicle alongwith the said invoice dated 22.05.2014 for Rs. 8,10,594/- under stamp and seal of OP with receipt dated 26.05.2014 issued by OP in favour of complainant for having received Rs. 74,953/- towards registration (life time), road tax, hypothecation and parking fee and copy of insurance certificate issued by IFFCO TOKIO for insurance policy issued on 24.05.2014 till 23.05.2015. The complainant filed certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in support of electronic evidence by way of e-mails and SMS as per mandatory requirement under law.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the OP sworn by its Executive Director opposing the complaint as misconceived and merit less and entirely speculative in nature with intent to recover some amount from the cost of the car in a malafide manner in abuse of process of law. OP exhibited the booking form with its terms and condition as DW/A-1 and DW/A-2 (both documents signed by the complainant) highlighting the nine months waiting (hand written on booking form No. 685 dated 04.08.2013 and terms and condition attached therewith.
6. Written arguments were filed by OP alongwith with which, OP placed on record the delivery receipt / challan dated 25.05.2014 as retrieved from the file of the OP company which earlier could not be located and vide which challan, the complainant had already signed an undertaking which clearly stated that as per clause 8 which stipulated that vehicle delivery is subject to production by the manufacturer and OP shall not be liable for any delay in delivery due to unforeseen circumstances. OP also submitted that the vehicle was delivered in good and working order within any deficiency. OP relied upon judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Premier Automobiles Ltd Vs Santosh Kanhayalal Jain and Anr. 1997 (1) CPJ 88 (NC) decided on 01.04.1997.  
7. Written arguments were filed by complainant in which the complainant submitted that there is discrepancy between the delivery receipt / challan dated 25.05.2014 filed by complainant and that filed by the OP in terms of the font of both the documents, printing of serial No. 3   on the upper right side and the said delivery receipt challan has only been signed by Aman Chandra OP sales executive and customer’s signature column is blank i.e. not signed by the complainant. Further complainant urged that OP failed to supply details of delivery of cars made by it as on date of complainant’s booking and thereafter and prayed for relief claimed and compensation by way of interest on the value of car deposited by her since March 2014. Complainant attached copy of letter dated 05.05.2014 by OP vide which it admitted its inability to deliver the subject vehicle till the date of the letter as also no commitment for any specific date of delivery and expressed its regret and apology for the same. Complainant relied upon judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in General Manager M/s Dynasty Walford Ltd Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd (1999) 1 CPR 78 (NC) decided on 06.01.1999 and Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs V.M. Goel in RP No. 974/2001 decided on 14.12.2001.
8. We have heard the arguments advanced by both sides and have keenly perused the documents placed on record.

It is not in dispute that the subject vehicle was booked by the complainant with OP on 14.08.2013 and the entire sale consideration thereof was received by OP from her by 08.03.2014. From e-mails and SMS sent by the complainant to OP between the period March 2014 to mid May 2014, it can be safely assumed that no delivery of vehicle was made till mid May 2014. OP’s letter dated 03.04.2014 and 05.05.2014 to the complainant speak volumes of its own failure to deliver the subject car within the promised time which got extended first from 30.04.2014 and finally as per letter dated 05.05.2014, OP remained non committal on any specific date of delivery for which it also expressed its regret and apology. It is evident that the OP failed to deliver the subject car on the date agreed upon i.e. end of March 2014 till 25.05.2014 therefore delaying the same by almost two months in which period the complainant persistently followed up with OP to deliver the subject vehicle. OP took the defence of disclaimer as per clause 8 of terms and conditions vide which it cannot be held accountable for delay on the part of manufacturer. However this in our opinion is a blame shifting tactic to wriggle out of its own liability towards its bonafide customers, in this case the complainant who paid the entire consideration amount on just one notice of OP only to be kept waiting indefinitely for delivery of the vehicle that he paid for. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgments of Mohinder Pratap Dass Vs Modern Automobiles and Anr 1995 (3) SCC 581 and Vikas Motors Ltd Vs Dr. P.K. Jain 1999 (6) SCC 548 held that the delivery of car within the specified period is a part of service to be provided by the respondent and failure to do so was patent deficiency of service in not delivering the vehicle despite being in receipt of its full amount / consideration. In the present case, there was an admitted delay of two months by OP to deliver the subject vehicle and even the delivery challan dated 25.05.2014 filed by OP appears to be a retrieved copy not bearing signatures of complainant thereon as opposed to the same filed by the complainant and also its failure to place on record the details of customer having been giving delivery of the vehicle on the date on which the complainant booked it and thereafter. The delay in delivery has not only been not explained by OP but has also been regretted and apologized for.  The demand of full price of car by OP from the complainant even before the car was ready for delivery would itself amount to unfair trade practice as was committed by OP in the present case as can be made out from documentary evidence. We therefore, drawing strength from the afore cited judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited above, find OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for delayed delivery of the subject vehicle. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.       

9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on 11.02.2020.

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member