STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | 204 of 2012 | Date of Institution | 11.06.2012 | Date of Decision | 10.07.2012 |
[1] Mrs. Jyoti Sharma w/o Sh. Amit Sharma; [2] Sh. Amit Sharma S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma; Both residents of House No. 670, Sector 9, Panchkula. .…Appellants/Complainants. VERSUS [1] M/s Modern Automobiles, through Mr. Madhu Vij (C.E.O.), 4 M.V., Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh. [2] M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., through its Managing Director, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070. [3] Mr. Madhu Vij, C/o Modern Automobiles, 4 M.W., Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh. [4] Mr. Ankur Sharma, Regional Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., SCO No. 39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. [5] Mr. Amrinder Singh Gill, Territory Sales Manager, Regional Office: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., SCO No.39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. …. Respondents/Opposite Parties. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER Present: Sh. Satish Kumar Saini, Duly Authorised Representative on behalf of the appellants/complainants. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants/complainants, against the order, dated 28.05.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) vide which, the complaint bearing No.480 of 2011 was allowed, qua M/s. Modern Automobiles (Respondent No.1/OP No.1) and directed it as under: - “10. As the complainants do not seem interested in purchasing the car from the Opposite Parties, we allow the complaint with the following directions: - (i) The Opposite Party No.1 shall return Rs.5,000/- received by them from the Complainants at the time of booking, along with interest, as per their policy. (ii) As the Opposite Party No.1 has also enjoyed the benefit of interest from 15.5.2011 to 10.10.2011 on the amount of Rs.5,22,866/- paid by the Complainants, it will thus pay interest @9% p.a. to the Complainants on this amount for the aforesaid period. 11. xxxxxx 12. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Party No.1; otherwise, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for further interest @18% per annum on the said amounts of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,22,866/- from the date of this order, till it is paid.” However, the complaint qua OPs No.2 to 5, was dismissed, on the ground, that no cause of action had accrued in favour of the appellants/complainants, against these OPs. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that on 18.05.2011, the Complainants booked a Maruti Swift LDI (white colour), with Opposite Party No.1, by depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/-. At the time of booking, it was told by Opposite Party No.3, that the vehicle would be available within 15-20 days. Expecting delivery, the Complainants took finance from the Bank of India and obtained a Demand Draft of Rs.5,22,866/- in favour of M/s Modern Automobiles, Chandigarh (Opposite Party No.1), towards the entire cost of the vehicle, as per quotation dated 07/06/2011. The margin money of Rs.1,00,866/- was deposited by the Complainants, from their own funds. The amount paid included insurance premium, as well as extended warranty charges. According to the complainants, they never received the vehicle despite visiting and contacting the Opposite Parties a number of times, which as per them, amounted to deficiency in service. They also served a legal notice dated 26.09.2011 upon the Opposite Parties demanding delivery of vehicle as well as compensation on account of expenditure incurred on transportation and bank interest, due to delay in the delivery of vehicle. Subsequently, Opposite Party No.1, in response to the legal notice, requested the Complainants to make another payment of Rs.12,583/- on account of the increase in price of new Swift LDI due to launch of a new model of Swift. The Complainants deposited the said amount on 29.9.2011. On the other hand, the Complainants were also paying the monthly EMIs to the Bank. According to the complainants, the vehicle was not delivered to them, till the filing of the complaint before the learned District Forum. Thus, the Complainants prayed for refund of the excess amount charged, along with interest and compensation. 3. A joint reply was filed by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 before the learned District Forum, wherein they admitted the factum of receipt of the booking amount. It was stated that the actual invoice price of the car was to be the one prevalent on the date of delivery. It was further stated that the approximate ex-showroom price of the car now was Rs.5,20,425/-. However, it was admitted that the Complainants had wished for a white colour car, but there was no commitment of delivery within any prescribed period. It was asserted that the Complainants had got the vehicle financed from the Bank and, on their request, the payment of Rs.5,22,866/- was accepted by the answering Opposite parties. However, on receipt of legal notice, the said amount of Rs.5,22,866/- was returned to the Complainants vide Cheque No.245620, dated 10/10/2011. It was further stated that the booking amount of Rs.5,000/- was still with the dealer. It was denied that Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 demanded any amount of Rs.12,583/- from the complainants. Thus, denying all other allegations, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. In separate reply filed by Opposite Parties No.2, 4 & 5, a specific preliminary objection was taken that the Complainants were not consumers qua them as they had booked the vehicle with Opposite Party No.1 under a contract of sale and paid consideration to Opposite Party No.1 only. However, on merits, it was denied that they ever allured the Complainants for purchase of the car in question. According to these OPs, they sell their vehicles to their authorized dealers, under the Dealership Agreement, and the authorized dealers including Opposite Party No.1, further sell the vehicles to their customers under their own invoice, and sale certificate, as per the Motor Vehicles Act. These OPs further asserted that they had not received any payment against the booked vehicle, from the Complainants. All other allegations, leveled by the complainants, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in service, on the part of these OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, qua OP No.1 only, as stated in the opening para of this order. 7. Aggrieved against the order, passed by the District Forum, the appellants/complainants have filed the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation in terms of interest, on the loan amount, which she paid to the Bank. 8. We have heard Sh. Satish Kumar Saini, duly authorized representative on behalf of the appellants/complainants at the time of admission stage and have also perused the record, carefully. 9. The main ground, which the appellants/complainants have taken for enhancement of compensation is that they availed a loan of Rs.4,22,000/- from Bank of India, @11.50% per annum for the purchase of vehicle in question, but the District Forum while allowing the complaint, awarded interest @9% per annum only, on the amount of Rs.5,22,866/-. The case of the appellants/complainants is that the District Forum should have awarded interest at the same rate i.e.11.50% per annum on the amount of loan for the period from 15.05.2011 to 10.10.2011, which the Bank of India had charged from them. 10. From the perusal of the complaint, it is evident that the appellants/complainants have not disclosed the rate of interest, which the Bank of India had charged from them on the loan amount. Moreover, in the appeal also, a mere mention of interest @11.50%, is not sufficient enough, to arrive at a conclusion that the loan was sanctioned at this rate, when no documentary evidence or any certificate of the said Bank had been placed on record to corroborate the pleadings. Even from the Statement of Account for the period from 15.06.2011 to 15.10.2011 (Exhibit C-10), it is not brought out as to what rate of interest was charged from the appellants/complainants by the Bank. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants/complainants that the appellants/complainants were entitled to interest @11.50% per annum, as charged by the Bank, is not tenable. Moreover, it is proved on record that the appellants/complainants were not interested in taking the delivery of vehicle in question. Therefore, the District Forum ordered for the refund of the booking amount ofRs.5,000/- along with interest, as per the policy of OP No.1. Hence, the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid. 11. Furthermore, since, no cause of action had accrued against respondents No.2 to 5 (Opposite Parties No.2 to 5 in the complaint), the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint qua these respondents/OPs. Thus, in the background of what has been discussed above, the appellants/complainants have miserably failed to make out a case for the enhancement of compensation. 12. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellants/complainants is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, being devoid of any merit, with no orders as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 13. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. Pronounced. 10th July, 2012. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad
STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.204 of 2012) Argued by: Sh. Satish Kumar Saini, duly authorised representative on behalf of the appellants/complainants. Dated the 10th day of July, 2012 ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no orders as to costs, as per directions. (NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
