Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/21

Sarjeevan Dhir - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Prestige Honda - Opp.Party(s)

L.D.Gupta Adv.

16 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 21 dated 11.01.2021.                                                Date of decision: 16.07.2024. 

 

Sarjeevan Dhir S/o. Sh.Jaswant Rai, now R/o. House No.331-R, Model Town, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

M/s. Prestige Honda, Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd., Dhandari Kalan, G.T. Road, Ludhiana through its Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                                           …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. L.D. Gupta, Advocate.

For OP                           :         None.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the OP invited applications for booking of its newly launched car namely ‘Amaze’ through advisements, in response to same, the complainant booked an ‘Amaze-Diesel’ car of Red colour by paying booking amount Rs.42,000/- vide receipt No.492 dated 13.04.2013 with the OP. Due to non delivery of car despite booking, the complainant in June 2014 cancelled the booking of car and requested for refund of Rs.42,000/- with interest but the OP did not refund the booking amount despite regular messages and reminders of the complainant. The complainant stated that in July 2016, the OP asked him to supply sale contract of the car, blank unsigned cheque, copy of his bank statement for enabling it to refund the booking amount with interest. The complainant vide letter dated 20.08.2016 sent all the required documents to the OP with request to refund the amount with interest without any further delay but the OP did not refund the amount. The complainant many times visited the OP and also sent messages and reminders to the OP for refund of booking amount but to no avail. In December 2019, the OP asked the complainant to supply copy of his letter dated 20.08.2016 along with original copy of sale contract of the car, original receipt of booked amount and copy of cancelled cheque with assurance to refund the amount along with interest immediately. The complainant vide his letter dated 18.06.2020 supplied the above said demanded documents to the OP with request to refund the deposited amount with interest. The complainant further stated that due to Covid pandemic, complete lockdown and curfew was imposed in the country so that he took time to send this letter but the OP did not refund the amount. Even the complainant sent a legal notice dated 12.07.2020 upon the OP but to no avail. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has requested for issuing directions to refund Rs.42,000/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.70,000/-.

2.                Initially, the OP did not appear despite service of summons and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.05.2021.

                   Thereafter, Sh. C.S. Chopra, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP and filed application for joining the proceedings at the stage. The said application as allowed vide order dated 21.10.2021 and the OP was permitted to join the proceedings at the stage the complaint was pending.

3.                Thereafter, the OP filed written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, the complaint being barred by limitation; concealment of true facts; the complainant has not come with clean hands; lack of cause of action etc. The OP stated that the complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrong acts as he has filed the present complaint beyond period of limitation. Further the communication cannot extend period of limitation. Even the complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay and such, the complaint merits dismissal.

                   On merits, the OP reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and facts of the case. The OP has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 is the copy of sales contract dated 13.04.2013, Ex. C2 is the copy of receipt dated 13.04.2013, Ex. C3 is the copy of reminder letter dated 20.08.2016 and copy of cancelled cheque, Ex. C4 is the copy of reminder letter dated 18.06.2020, Ex. C5 is the copy of reminder letter dated 20.06.2020, Ex. C6 is the copy of legal notice dated 12.07.2020 and closed the evidence.

5.                The OP did not adduce any evidence despite grant of numerous opportunities including last and final chance and as such, evidence of the OP was closed by order vide order dated 24.04.2024.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement produced on record by the parties.

7.                Undoubtedly, the complainant booked ‘Amaze Diesel’ car of Red Colour from the OP by paying Rs.42,000/- as booking amount vide receipt No.492 dated 13.04.2013 Ex. C1. Due to non-supply of the car, the complainant opted to cancel the booking in July 2014 and asked for refund of booking amount with interest. As a result, in June 2016, the OP asked the complainant to supply certain documents such as sale contract of the car, blank unsigned cheque, copy of his bank statement in order to initiate the refund process. Believing upon the OP, the complainant vide letter dated 20.08.2016 Ex. C3 sent all the documents demanded by the OP. Moreover, the complainant sent messages, reminders and made personal visits to the OP with request to refund of booking amount but to no avail. Again in December 2019, the OP asked the complainant to supply the same documents which the complainant sent vide letter dated 20.08.2016. Again on 18.06.2020, the complainant supplied the required documents with the OP but the OP failed to refund the booking amount.

8.                Although the evidence placed on record by the complainant has gone unrebutted. The OP has failed to make the delivery of the booked car to the complainant despite receipt of booking amount of Rs.42,000/- and finding no other way, the complainant opted to get the booking amount refunded which was lying with the OP since 13.04.2013. So he requested the OP for refund of booking amount of Rs.42,000/- with interest from the OP. Upon asking of the OP, the complainant on 20.08.2016 sent all the requisite documents for process of refund. The OP has failed to perform its duty for non-delivery of the vehicle which the OP was suppose to deliver to the complainant despite various efforts by the complainant by paying personal visits, message and reminders. On the other hand, the complainant sent all the demanded which he mentioned in his reminder letter dated 18.06.2020 and 20.08.2016 respectively. The OP had failed to perform its obligation to render delivery of vehicle to the complainant nor the OP made any effort to refund the booking amount to the complainant. Hence, the OP is guilty of deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice. It would be most appropriate to examine the definition of ‘deficiency” as enshrined in Section 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is re-produced as under:-

“ ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-

1. any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.”

9.                The complainant made every good effort to get the refund of booking amount with interest from the OP but the OP failed to do so. Even the OP kept in tacked the hard earned money of the complainant since long (when the car was booked). In the given circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the OP is directed to refund Rs.42,000/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of submission of documents i.e. 20.08.2016 till date of actual payment, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the OP shall pay an additional interest @3% per annum on the said amount. The interest paid on the amount shall be considered as compensation.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OP shall to refund Rs.42,000/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of submission of documents i.e. 20.08.2016 till date of actual payment, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the OP shall pay an additional interest @3% per annum on the said amount. The interest paid on the amount shall be considered as compensation. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.07.2024.

Gobind Ram.