Amritpal Singh filed a consumer case on 15 Jun 2015 against M/s Stan Wheels Pvt.Ltd in the Ludhiana Consumer Court. The case no is CC/15/110 and the judgment uploaded on 17 Jun 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
C.C.No.110 of 24.02.2015
Date of decision:15.06.2015
Amritpal Singh son of Sh.Chanda Singh, House No.15, Anand Nagar, vill.Threeke, District Ludhiana.
….Complainant.
Versus
M/s.Stan Wheel Pvt. Ltd., Near Ayali Chowk, Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana, through its Directors.
…Opposite party
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.
Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.
Present: Sh.Japinder Singh, Adv, for complainant.
Op ex-parte.
ORDER
R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT.
1. Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh.Amritpal Singh(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against M/s.Stan Wheel Pvt. Ltd., Near Ayali Chowk, Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana, through its Directors (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Op’), directing them to refund Rs.21,000/- given in advance as booking amount alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of deposit alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing harassment and mental agony and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant wanted to purchase car Model Ciaz VDI+ of Maruti Make and for such purpose, he approached OP, who is the authorized dealer of Maruti Company, as the marriage of his nephew was to take place in the month of January, 2015. The complainant on demand of the OP deposited Rs.21,000/- as booking amount, vide receipt No.1730 dated 11.10.2014 with a clear understanding that the vehicle will be provided within two months. The OP failed to honour its commitment to supply the vehicle within stipulated period, rather put-off the complainant one excuse or the other, always assuring early delivery. The complainant made number of personal calls to the employees of OP but was disappointed, as the vehicle was not supplied till 28th January, 2015, as assured by the Op. The OP knew that they will not be able to supply the vehicle within two months but they made false promises for its positive supply in the month of January, 2015. Having exhausted patience, the complainant desired to take its said booking amount and approached the Op. The complainant on the asking of the OP deposited the original receipt with them on 29.1.2015 to get the booking cancelled and sought refund of the earnest money. Due to non-supply of the vehicle before the said marriage, the complainant was to put to great mental agony and harassment before the family members. Such act and conduct of OP is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. Upon notice of the complaint, earlier Sh.R.K.Bhandari, Advocate had put his appearance on behalf of OP and when the case was fixed for filing w/s by OP, neither Sh.R.K.Bhandari, Advocate had put his appearance on behalf of OP nor OP had put their appearance and as such, OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.5.2015 by this District Forum.
4. In order to prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA alongwith document Ex.C1 and closed the ex-parte evidence of complainant.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record the document Ex.C1 copy of acknowledgement receipt issued by the OP to the complainant qua deposit of booking amount of Rs.21,000/- qua the car booked by the complainant on 11.10.2014.
7. Since, the OP did not appear and contest the present complaint, so evidence adduced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted.
8. From the allegations of the complainant as well as the evidence on record, it is apparently clear that complainant had got booked the car Model Ciaz VDI+ of Maruti Make with the OP and had deposited Rs.21,000/- as booking amount vide receipt No.1730 dated 11.10.2014 with the clear understanding that the vehicle will be provided within two months which fact is evident from copy of the receipt Ex.C1 placed on record by the complainant. Further, it is a proved fact from the evidence and as well as contents of the complainant that the complainant has not been supplied the car in question by the OP till date and as per the allegations of the complainant that despite repeated requests and despite submitting the original acknowledgment receipt qua the booking amount with the OP by the complainant, OP failed to refund the amount of booking to the complainant, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
9. In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we direct the OP to refund the booking amount of Rs.21,000/- to the complainant, if the same has not been refunded earlier. Further, for causing sufferance and harassment to the complainant, OP is are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed at Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.
(Sat Paul Garg) (R.L.Ahuja)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:15.06.2015
Gurpreet Sharma
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.