DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sh.Sandeep Kumar Rana s/o Ranvir Singh Rana, age 31 years r/o H.No.154, Second Floor, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070, through its Managing Director/General Manager.

2.       M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., SCO No.39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

3.       M/s Berkeley Automobiles Ltd., Plot No.27, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director Sh.Ranjeev Dahuja.

4.       Sh.Ranjeev Dahuja, Managing Director, M/s Berkeley Automobiles Ltd., Plot No.27, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh.

5.       Sh.Vikrant Thakur s/o Sh.Chaman Lal Thakur c/o Mrs.Debashree Thakur, H.No.274, First Floor, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh; also at AG/16, Agriculture Colony, Jawahar Nagar, District Mandi (HP).

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

ARGUED BY: Sh.Harish Chhabra, Counsel for complainant.

                      Sh.S.R.Bansal, Counsel for OP No.1.

                      Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Counsel for OPs No.3 and 4.

                      OPs No.2 and 5 exparte.  

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Sandeep Kumar Rana, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & Ors. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he booked a Maruti Swift VDI (White) car with OP No.3 local dealer of OP No.1 on 1.12.2011 and paid the booking amount of Rs.10,000/- through cheque vide receipt – Annexure C-1. Order booking form – Annexure C-2, extended warranty registration – Annexure C-3 and order booking cum commitment checklist is Annexure C-4. As per order booking form – Annexure C-2 the cost of the vehicle was mentioned as ex-showroom price Rs.5,74,019/-, insurance Rs.16,136/-, extended warranty Rs.3620/-, handling charges Rs.2,000/-, registration charges Rs.100/- and others Rs.331/- totaling Rs.5,96,206/-. The tentative waiting period was six months and the tentative delivery date was given as 1.6.2012. The complainant received a delay delivery intimation letter dated 12.7.2012 – Annexure C-5 from OP No.3, whereby he was informed that due to some unforeseen circumstances the delivery of his vehicle will take some more time. After having waited sufficiently, the complainant took up the matter with the officials of OP No.3 in particular, he was asked by OP No.5 to deposit the remaining amount to facilitate the quick delivery of his vehicle. The complainant deposited a further sum of Rs.2 lacs vide cheque dated 27.7.2012 favouring OP No.3, which was duly encashed by it vide bank statement – Annexure  C-6. Thereafter, complainant visited the showroom of OP No.3 to further deposit a sum of Rs.3 lacs in cash towards the cost of the booked vehicle and OP No.5 suggested him to deposit the amount through demand draft/cheque as their company did not accept cash as a matter of policy. OP No.5 also offered the alternative facility of getting a demand draft made, to which the complainant agreed. OP No.5 handed over a demand draft dated 30.7.2012 of IDBI Bank for Rs.3 lacs vide Annexure C-7, which was deposited by the complainant in the bank account of OP No.3 (Annexure C-8). It has been contended that the complainant specifically mentioned at the back of the aforesaid demand draft that it was being deposited towards the cost of the said booked vehicle besides mentioning his PAN number, name and model of the vehicle. The complainant in one of his numerous visits to the showroom of OP No.3 to enquire about the delivery of his vehicle, was handed over a vehicle availability intimation letter dated 24.9.2012 – Annexure C-9 by OP No.3 to take the delivery within three days. The aforesaid period given was much shorter than the normal period given to any one for arranging the remaining huge money and the letter was more of an eye wash and was given as a clever ploy to create evidence against the complainant. Still the complainant approached OP No.3 with the remaining money but OP No.3 flatly refused to accept the same and to deliver the booked vehicle to him.  Instead the OP No.3 has been illegally asking for the total cost of the vehicle (less booking amount only) all over again. OP No.3 has been insisting that they cannot adjust the amount of Rs.5 lacs (i.e. the amount given besides the initial booking amount) given by the complainant. It has been contended that the complainant is unreasonably made victim of some disputes/issues between the OP No.3 and OP No.5 as the latter might have played some tricks with OP No.3.  It has been alleged that the complainant has ever been ready and willing to take his vehicle against payment of the remaining amount but OP No.3 has not been delivering the same inspite of the fact that a substantial consideration amount has already been paid to it. The complainant has alleged grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OPs to give delivery of one Maruti Swift VDI (white) car to him by accepting the balance amount, to pay Rs.1 lac for mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.                OPs No.2 and 5 did not appear despite service and they were proceeded exparte on 12.2.2013.

3.                OPs No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement (OP No.2 was already exparte but it filed a joint written statement with OP No.1) have pleaded that OP No.1 being manufacturer does not sell vehicles so manufactured to any individual customer directly. OP No.1 sells the vehicles to its authorized dealers under the dealership agreement against C form under the Central Sales Tax Act. The dealers including OP No.3 sell the vehicles to their customers under their own invoice and sales certificate.  The relationship between the OPs No.1 and 3 is based on principal to principal and is governed by the dealership agreement. It has been averred that OPs No.1 and 2 have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The complainant booked the alleged vehicle with OP No.3 under an independent contract for sale of Maruti Swift Vdi and entered into an agreement after having mutually settled the terms and conditions of sale with OP No.3. The booking amount has neither been paid to OP No.1 or OP No.2 nor they are liable to deliver the vehicle or refund the booking amount to the complainant.

4.                OPs No.3 and 4 in their written reply have admitted that OP No.5 has remained Sales Executive of OP No.3. It has been admitted that the complainant approached OP No.3 for purchasing Maruti Swift VDI car on 1.12.2011. He booked the vehicle vide Annexure C-2 by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- against the proper receipt. It has been admitted that the letter – Annexure C-5 was issued in view of the stoppage of production of vehicles conveying the delay in delivery of the vehicles. It has been denied that the complainant was ever asked by the answering OPs to deposit any amount before 24.9.2012. It has been averred that the complainant had in fact deposited the amount of Rs.2 lacs on his own or in connivance with OP No.5 with whom he had planned to take illegal delivery of the vehicle without the knowledge or consent of the management of the OPs. It has been averred that the complainant was never asked to pay Rs.3 lacs. It has been denied that cash payments are not accepted by the OPs. It has been denied that OPs or its employees provide the service of preparing demand drafts for the customers. It has been contended that the complainant in connivance with OP No.5 had purchased the demand draft of Rs.3 lacs pertaining to one Sunita for Rs.2,45,000/- from OP No.5 knowing that he was indulging in illegal activity. The illegal act so committed by the complainant has been admitted by the complainant in letter – Annexure R-4. It has been stated that once the entire fraud came to light, the complainant submitted letter – Annexure R-4. The complainant was called through repeated telephonic calls and by letter dated 24.9.2012 – Annexure C-9 but he refused to take the delivery of car by payment of the balance amount. It has been stated that the complainant in connivance with Mr.Vikrant Thakur – OP No.5, Sales Executive hatched a conspiracy to cheat the answering OPs and to deprive their other customers of their priority to take delivery of Maruti Swift Dezire Cars. The OPs unearthed a big scam operated by OP No.5 in which it was found that OP No.5 in league and connivance with some customers like complainant had indulged in giving delivery of Maruti Swift/Dezire Vehicles to the said customers at priority, who otherwise had no right to take delivery of the vehicle at priority. Obviously the said benefit was given by OP No.5 for some good illegal considerations from his said favored customer. It has been stated that since the delivery of such vehicles was illegal OP No.5 in connivance of the said customers would indulge in preparing forged and fabricated documents i.e. invoice, insurance cover note, temporary registration number etc. As soon as the answering OPs came to know about the fraud, OP No.5 Mr.Vikrant Thakur eloped. The answering OPs immediately approached the police authorities and lodged a complaint dated 21.8.2012 against Mr.Vikrant Thakur with the police. The copy of the complaint dated 21.8.2012 is Annexure R-2. The general public was also informed vide public notice  dated 30.8.2012 – Annexure R-3 that Mr.Vikrant Thakur had indulged in illegal activities and the answering OPs shall not be responsible for any dealing with Mr.Vikrant Thakur. It has been stated that on discovering the said fraud and other similar frauds, the answering OPs filed additional complaint against Mr.Vikrant Thakur, copy of which is Annexure R-5. It has been averred that now the police has succeeded in apprehending the OP No.5 on 28.1.2013 and his interrogation is being conducted and this Forum cannot adjudicate upon a criminal dispute which requires investigation and then leading of evidence, examination and cross examination of witnesses etc. which cannot be done in the summary jurisdiction of this Forum. It has been stated that the complainant was not ready to get permission from the police in respect of utilization of the amount of Rs.3 lacs pertaining to Sunita.

5.                In his rejoinder (which was filed beyond the period directed by this Forum), the complainant has pleaded that OPs No.3 and 4 have cleverly weaved a story out of their figment of imagination to deny the rightful claim of the complainant in the garb of technicalities. It has been denied that the complainant hatched a conspiracy to cheat OPs No.3 and 4 and to deprive their other customers of their priority to take delivery. It has been denied that the complainant was in league and connivance with OP No.5 in taking delivery of the booked vehicle on priority. It has been stated that the complainant has also lodged a complaint with Chandigarh Police against all the OPs which is pending investigation. It has been stated that dispute between the parties can be decided in summary jurisdiction. The complainant has also annexed one letter dated 23.2.2013 – Annexure C-10 sent by OPs No.3 and 4 with the rejoinder which is stated to be self explanatory.

6.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

7.                We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant, OP No.1 and OPs No.3 and 4.

8.                It is the admitted case of the OPs No.3 and 4 that the complainant had made payment of booking amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of Maruti Swift VDI (White) car vide draft dated 1.12.2011. It is also the admitted case of OPs No.3 and 4 that a delay delivery intimation letter dated 12.7.2012 – Annexure C-5 was sent to the complainant. OPs No.3 and 4 have also pleaded that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.2 lacs on his own or in connivance with OP No.5, with whom he had planned to take illegal delivery of the vehicle without the knowledge or consent of the management.

9.                As far as the question of payment of Rs.3 lacs by way of demand draft purchased by OP No.5 is concerned, as per the case of the OPs No.3 and 4 that demand draft pertained to one Sunita  and it was purchased by the complainant for an amount of Rs.2,45,000/- from OP No.5. The OPs No.3 and 4 have produced a copy of the letter dated 5.9.2012 sent by the complainant – Annexure R-4 to them which shows that Mr.Vikrant Thakur had given him a demand draft of IDBI Bank worth Rs.3 lacs against the cash of Rs.2,45,000/-. According to the OPs No.3 and 4, the complainant in connivance with Mr.Vikrant Thakur – OP No.5 who was their Sales Executive hatched a conspiracy to cheat the OPs No.3 and 4 and to deprive their other customers of their priority to take delivery of Maruti Swift Dezire Cars. It is pertinent to note that OPs No.3 and 4 lodged a complaint – Annexure R-2 with the police against Mr.Vikrant Thakur, Sales Executive on a complaint received from Mr.Abhishek Garg  alleging that he made a payment of Rs.50,000/- to Mr.Vikrant Thakur as advance for booking the car but no receipt was given to him. Further more his brother Mr.Abhineet Garg after taking the delivery of car was not given the receipts of payment by Mr.Vikrant Thakur and he was shocked to know that the car sold to him was actually billed in the name of one Mr.Sarbjeet. It was also submitted that the documents issued to Mr.Abhineet Garg regarding his car i.e. insurance policy, temporary umber and sales letter were false and fake, which were prepared by Mr.Vikrant Thakur only to cheat the customer as well as the company. M/s Berkeley Automobiles Limited also issued a Public Notice – Annexure R-3 for the information of the general public that Mr.Vikrant Thakur who used to work with it as Sales Executive was found indulging in mal practices with the customers and his services were terminated and criminal action had been initiated against him. The copy of letter dated 14.9.2012 – Annexure R-5 sent by Berkeley Automobiles Limited – OP No.3 to the Director General of Police, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh gives the details of the manner in which Mr.Vikrant Thakur in connivance with the customers have been taking huge premium from the customers, who did not have any booking and paying the same in account of the person who had initially booked the vehicle projecting before the Company that the said payment had been received for delivery of the vehicle to the person, who had initially booked the vehicle. Since the vehicle delivered to his customer was against the booking in respect of some other person Mr.Vikrant would prepare fake documents by forging and fabricating the documents like invoice, insurance, temporary number etc. in his house with the aid of computer and printer. In some cases Mr.Vikrant had taken the payment from his customer in cash and had misappropriated the same and was unable to get them delivered the promised vehicle due to non-availability of funds with him, in such case Mr.Vikrant had devised a noval way of getting the vehicle delivered from the company. Mr.Vikrant would utilize the payment received through drafts in respect of his some other customers to whom he had also promised delivery of vehicle, in account of the person whose money he would have misappropriated and get the vehicle delivered to the person, whose payment he had received in cash and had misappropriated. The letter also shows that after lodging the first complaint the company had received similar inquiries from the customers of Mr.Vikrant Thakur, who had connived with him to take the delivery of the vehicles without any booking or priority. From the enquiries made from the record the company came to know that apart from Mr.Vikrant, the involvement of 13 other persons including the complainant was apparent. The police also registered an FIR – Annexure R-6 against Mr.Vikrant Thakur.

10.              After appraising the entire evidence and hearing the parties, we are of the view that this case involves complicated and complex questions of law and fact which cannot be adjudicated through summary procedure. The dispute between the parties requires recording of detailed evidence, production of documents and cross examination of the witnesses. OPs No.3 and 4 have leveled the allegations of fraud and preparation of forged and fabricated documents by Mr.Vikrant Thakur in connivance with the complainant and others. The police has to investigate the role of the complainant in the offences. Consequently, we do not feel that it is a fit case for summary adjudication by this Forum.

11.              It is true that the complainant has produced a copy of letter dated 23.2.2013 – Annexure C-10 sent by Berkeley Automobiles Limited to him, wherein, he was requested to contact the Chief General Manager immediately for settlement of his account but this fact does not mean that OPs No.3 and 4 have admitted the receipt of the amount of Rs.3 lacs by demand draft from the complainant.  Importantly, OPs No.3 and 4 are ready to deliver the car to the complainant subject to deduction of the booking amount and the amount of Rs.2 lacs paid by cheque. However, the complainant wants that the amount of Rs.3 lacs deposited by demand draft which is alleged to be of one Sunita by OPs No.3 and 4, be considered payment on his behalf, though in his letter – Annexure R-4 he has himself mentioned that he had paid cash amount of Rs.2,45,000/- to Mr.Vikrant Thakur and he had given him a demand draft of Rs.3 lacs against that. Evidently, it was none of the business of Mr.Vikrant Thakur to get prepared the demand drafts on behalf of customers. We are not impressed with this contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant that the questions involved in the complaint can be decided by way of summary adjudication. On the other hand, we feel that when an FIR has been registered and the matter is being investigated/has been investigated by the police, it is for the criminal court to decide the role of Mr.Vikrant Thakur and his connivance with customers including the complainant. If Berkeley Automobiles Limited has sent a letter to the complainant for settlement of his account it does not mean that it is admitting the payment of the whole of the amount as alleged by the complainant. After having considered the various aspects of the matter discussed above, we feel that the dispute in this case is not adjudicable in summary jurisdiction.

12.              For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for resolving the issues involved in his complaint.

13.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to record room.