Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/328/2010

Rajinder Singh Chandel, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Krishna Automobiles, - Opp.Party(s)

Comp. in person

26 Jul 2011

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-IIPlot No. 5-B, Sector 19-B, Madhya marg, Chandigarh - 160019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 328 of 2010
1. Rajinder Singh Chandel,R/o # 201, Type-I, Sector 12, Chandigarh. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. M/s Krishna Automobiles,177/E, Ind. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 26 Jul 2011
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
U.T. CHANDIGARH
 
[Complaint Case No:328 of 2010]
                                                                       Date of Institution : 28.05.2010
                                                                                   Date of Decision    :26.07.2011
                                                                                   -------------------------------------
Sh. Rajinder Singh Chandel son of Sh. Paras Ram resident of House No.201, Type-I, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
                                                                        …..Complainant.
V E R S U S
M/s Krishna Automobiles, 177-E, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh – 160002.
…..Opposite Party.
BEFORE:       SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA,      PRESIDENT
SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA             MEMBER
Argued By:    None for the complainant.
                        Sh. Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for the OP.
 
PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
                        Sh. Rajinder Singh Chandel has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed: -
i)                    To reimburse an excess amount of approximately Rs.2,000/- to the complainant;
ii)                   To pay adequate compensation for physical harassment and mental agony.
iii)                 To pay costs of litigation.
2.                     In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 29.12.2009, he booked a Honda Activa Scooter (Standard Model) with OP. He paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- as booking amount vide receipt No.M/9152. He was given a waiting period of 90 days for taking delivery of the scooter. When he approached the office of OP after expiry of said period, he was told to wait for another 30 days. According to the complainant, the other applicants, who had booked their scooters in January 2010, had already got the delivery on 4.4.2010. It is averred that on 10.5.2010, the complainant was advised to take the delivery of Delux Model instead of Standard Model as its consignment was to reach after one or two months. The complainant opted for taking the delivery of Delux Model and took its delivery on 13.5.2010. He paid Rs.41,969/- as the sale price of the Delux Model whereas the sale price of the Standard Model, which he has booked, was Rs.40,077/-. Thus, as per the complainant, OP has thus charged from him an excess amount of Rs.2,000/- approximately. According to the complainant, the action of OP amounts to deficiency in service.
                        In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
3.                     In the reply filed by OP, it has been admitted that the complainant booked a Honda Activa Scooter (Standard Model) with it after paying a sum of Rs.1,000/- as booking amount. He was given a waiting period of 90 days for taking delivery of the scooter. According to the OP, the company did not supply the scooters of Standard Model as were being supplied at the time of booking by the complainant. It has been pleaded that the Customers Relation Manager of the manufacturing company informed the OP that the company has discontinued the manufacturing of Standard Model of Activa Scooter. So, the complainant was offered to have delivery of Delux Model, which was having extra features. According to the OP, the complainant after being fully satisfied opted for the purchase of Delux Model and purchased the same. As per OP, there was only a difference of Rs.1,124/- in the prices of Standard and Delux Model. According to the OP, as the manufacturing of the Standard Model of Activa Scooter, which the complainant had booked, was discontinued by the manufacturing company, no negligence can be attributed to the OP for not supplying the booked model.  Thus, according to OP, there is no deficiency on its part. In these circumstances, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.                     On the date of final hearing i.e. 25.7.2010, none appeared on behalf of the complainant and we proceeded to hear the matter on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the absence of the complainant.
5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and have perused the record.
6.                     Admittedly, the complainant had booked Honda Activa (Standard Model) and he took the delivery of Honda Activa (Delux Model), which is having better features. The case of OP is that the manufacturer had stopped manufacturing Honda Activa (Standard Model). Therefore, its supply was short. As such, OP offered the complainant to purchase Honda Activa (Delux Model). The complainant accepted the said offer and purchased the same at his own sweet will. As the price of Honda Activa (Delux Model) was higher, so, a sum of Rs.1,124/- was taken more than the price of Honda Activa (Standard Model). The price, which was taken from the complainant, was the price fixed by the manufacturer.
7.                     Thus, the complainant purchased Delux Model of Honda Activa at his own sweet will. The said model is a superior model having extra features and its price is also higher. There is no allegation to the effect that the complainant had not accepted the offer of OP for purchasing the Delux Model and the said model was given to him under the pretext that it is the same model, which was booked by the complainant. Nor there is any allegation to the effect that the price charged by OP is higher than the price fixed by the manufacturer. In these circumstances, as the complainant has himself accepted the offer for a better model having higher price, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of OP. As such, the complainant has failed to make out a case of any deficiency in service.
8.                     So, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.
9.                     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced.
26th July, 2011.
(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)
PRESIDENT
 
 
(MADHU MUTNEJA)
MEMBER


(DISTRICT FORUM-II)
COMPLAINT CASE NO.328 OF 2010
 
[ORDER]
 
Present:          None.
 
                                                                        ---
 
                        The case was reserved on 25.07.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned.
Announced.
26.07.2011                  [PRESIDENT]                                   [MEMBER]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBERHONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT ,