Haryana

Ambala

CC/380/2012

RUCHI SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MODERN AUTOMOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

ARVIND GOEL

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

Complaint Case No. : 380 of 2012

Date of Institution    : 30.11.2012

Date of Decision      :  29.04.2016

 

Ruchi Sharma D/o Sh. V.D.Sharma R/o H.No.268, Sector-9, Ambala City.

                                                                                                                                                       ……Complainant.

 

                                                                                Versus

1.       M/s Modern Automobiles, Near Model Town Crossing, G.T. Road, Ambala City.

2.       M/s Maruti Suzuki India  Ltd., Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070, through its General Manager.

                                                                             ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:    SH.A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.         

Present:       Sh. Arvind Goel, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Keshav Sharma, Adv. counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

1.                 Present complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that on 08.01.2012, complainant got booked Alto Car (Model 2011) with OP No.1 for her marriage which was to be solemnized on 28.01.2012 and OP No.1 received booking amount of Rs.1000/- and delivery of the car was assured on or before 28.01.2012 and cost of the car was Rs.2,67,632/-. It has been contended that on 25.01.2012, complainant received a telephonic call from OP No.1 for making payment of the car and to take delivery of the same, so the complainant alongwith her father went to show room of OP No.1 where they were advised for taking delivery of the car on 27.01.2012 but the delivery was not given on the appointed day. As such, complainant went to OP No.1 on 28.01.2012 but they told the complainant that the Alto Car which was delivered to them had been sold to some other person.  So, on 28.01.2012 (the day of marriage), the car was purchased from Ekansh Wheels in a sum of Rs.2,85,107/- and thus the complainant has to incur excess amount of Rs.17475/- for purchase of the car. A legal notice dated 14.02.2012 qua the matter was served upon the Ops but of no avail. Hence, the Ops are deficient and negligent in providing proper services to the complainant as well as has played unfair trade practice with the complainant and thus the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in prayer para of the complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Op No.1 submitted written statement urging therein that complaint is not maintainable in the present form since neither it is a consumer dispute nor there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, it has been  urged that  it was never promised and agreed to deliver  the car on or before 28.01.2012 although it was booked on 08.01.2012 and tentative date of delivery was given within 45 days as per order booking form. However, the complainant never approached the answering OP for refund  of Rs.1000/-. Thus the OP has contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

                   Op No.2 filed its written statement separately raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint since  the relations between OP No.1 (dealership of OP No.2) and answering OP are on ‘Principal to Principal basis’ and thus OP No.2 is not responsible for any act or omission  & commission committed by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs against them.

3.                To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Sh. Chander Sekhar, Manager as Annexure RX alongwith document as Annexures R-1 and closed their evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The main controversy revolves  around the order booking/commitment check list (Annexure R-1/C-1) wherein the complainant has contended that Op has not mentioned the tentative delivery date rather verbally assured the delivery date as 28.01.2012 whereas OP is contending that he has specifically mentioned  tentative delivery date on the booking order i.e. within 45 days from booking date i.e. 08.01.2012.  On minutely perusal of the Booking Order Form, it reveals that complainant has put her signatures at bottom of the said document  wherein it has been specifically mentioned just above the signatures that “I understand that no verbal commitment will be honoured”  meaning thereby  that if the contention of complainant for the sake of arguments, is taken as truth, even then, the same cannot stand in light of the undertaking given by the complainant on the order booking form, so the version of the complainant that the Ops was to deliver the car to complainant on 28.01.2012 is not believable rather  the car was to be delivered within 45 days from the Booking date as per  Annexure R-1.

5.                In view of the facts discussed above, we have come to the conclusion that the OP is not at fault in not delivering the vehicle to the complainant on 28.01.2012 as alleged by complainant. However, at the same time, OP is deficient in not refunding the booking amount of Rs.1000/- so deposited by complainant with them and the version of the OP that they retained the booking amount with them because the complainant never approached them to refund the same, is not tenable as the Op no.1 was duty bound to refund the booking amount immediately after elapse of 45 days from 08.01.2012 but they did not do so rather retained the same with them  even after  filing of the present complaint by the complainant before the Forum which admittedly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice  on the part of OP No.1. As such, we have no option except to partly accept the present complaint of the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and Op No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. To refund the booking amount of Rs.1000/- to the complainant with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its deposit i.e. 08.01.2012 to till its realization.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment/mental agony as well as litigation charges.

 

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP No.1 within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of default. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

ANNOUNCED:29.04.2016

                                                                                             Sd/-                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                (A.K. SARDANA)

                 PRESIDENT                 

                                                                                      

                                                                                            Sd/-                                                                                                                               

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR )

                                                                                           MEMBER