DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 35/2020

In the matter of:

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 11.11.2019 the Complainant along with her husband went to the Opposite Party for purchase a small car with the features of safety air bag and the best mileage in petrol. At that time, Opposite Party contacted the complainant and her husband and introduced the car Make Datsun Redi Go AMT (S) car featuring safety air bag as well as the best mileage of 23 Km per litre in petrol. Thereafter, Opposite Party gave details/quotation for Datsun Redi Go AMT (S) car in his own hand writing to the Complainant as below:-

2.  The Opposite Party stated that on road price of Datsun Redi Go AMT (S) with safety air bag car Rs. 4,96,828/-. He committed to give discount on purchase of the said Datsun Redi Go AMT (S) with safety air bag car as under:-

3.  The Complainant paid to the Opposite Party Rs. 3,60,000/- as full and final payment in addition to old Maruti Zen Estelo car for new Datsun Redi Go AMT (S) car with safety air bag as well as mileage of 23 km per litre petrol as committed by Opposite Party. On 20.11.2019 after receiving full and final amount Rs. 3,60,000/- from the Complainant, the Opposite Party fraudulently delivered Datsun Redi Go T(O) car without safety air bag instead of the committed Datsun Redi Go AMT (S) car with safety air bag as well as mileage of 23 km per litre petrol. The unfair trade practice and fraudulent sale of Datsun Redi Go T(O) car without safety air bag instead of the committed Datsun Redi To AMT (S) car with safety air bag by Opposite Party caused great mental agony, harassment, torture, loss and humiliation to the Complainant for which the Opposite Party is liable to indemnify the Complainant.
4. The Complainant has prayed to refund Rs. 3,60,000/- which has paid by the Complainant through cheque to the Opposite Party in addition to Old Maruti Zen Estelo car valued Rs. 85,000/- plus bonus Rs. 23,828/- i.e. total Rs. 4,68,828/-.

Case of the Opposite Party

5. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party that the Complainant has not come with clean hands before the Commission and suppressed the material facts from the eyes of this Commission. Therefore, it is false and fabricated story. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. The document namely estimate annexed as Annexure no. 2 with the complaint and relied upon by the Complainant was never issued by the officers of the Opposite Party. The annexure-2 is a plain paper and even does not bear the stamp of the office of Opposite Party. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. The booking form was very much filled in front of the Complainant and she had also signed the said booking form. All the contents were very much understood and read-over by the Complainant. In the present case the subject vehicle is the same vehicle as booked by the Complainant and the same was duly verified as examined before taking delivery as well as all the specifications and use manual have been explained to the complained before taking possession and delivery of the subject vehicle.

The subject vehicle was sold on 20.11.2019 to the Complainant after verifying all the details and paper work in relation to the subject vehicle. It is further submitted that the Complainant in person received the delivery of the subject vehicle i.e. Datsun Redi go T (O) S Drive AMT on 20.11.2019 and delivery note bears the signature of the subject vehicle.

While delivering the vehicle the Opposite Party had issued gate pass in which it was clearly mention the details of the subject vehicle i.e. Datsun Redi Go T(O) S Drive 1 Litre AMT.It is further submitted that gate pass bears the signature of the Complainant. The Complainant has not placed any cogent plausible and legally admissible evidence which support the contention of wrong delivery of the subject vehicle, or manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle as alleged by the Complainant in relation to the mileage of the subject vehicle. The customer has booked and paid for Redigo T (O) AMT model, and not Redi Go (S) model. It is denied for want of knowledge. It is further submitted that the average of a vehicle is always dependent on the uses of the vehicle, speed, putting breaks, road conditions, driving skill, using of fuel, etc. Moreover, the average always shown as in ideal conditions, therefore, average is govern by various conditions and situations. The contents of para no. 7 of the complaint i.e the Complainant paid to the Opposite Party Rs. 3,60,000/- as full and final payment are admitted to an extent that the payment was made in by the Complainant against the subject vehicle i.e. Datsun Redi Go T(O). Hence it is denied that the payment was made for the Datsun Redi Go AMT (S).

Rejoinder to written statement of Opposite Party

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein she has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Parties

7. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint. The Opposite Party in support of its case has filed the affidavit of Shri Azad Khan, Admin Executive, M/s Shekhawati Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 89 Patparganj Industrial Area Delhi-110092. In his affidavit he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments and Conclusion

8. We have heard the Husband of Complainant i.e Authorized Representative and the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Opposite Party
9.  The case of the Complainant is that she booked Datsun Redi Go AMT(S) car with safety air bag as well as mileage of 23 km per litre and Opposite Party fraudulently delivered Datsun Redi Go T (O) car without safety air bag. That is why this is the case of unfair trade practice and fraudulent sale of Datsun Redi Go T (O) car instead of Datsun Redi Go AMT (S) with safety bag and as per submission of the Opposite Party the booking form was very much filled in front of the Complainant and she also signed the said booking form for delivery of car i.e Datsun Redi go T(O) and also while delivery the vehicle Opposite Party had issued gate pas in which it is clearly mention the details of the delivery vehicle i.e Datsun Redi Go (O) S car. The gate pas was delivery of said car was also bearing the signature of the Complainant.
10. Complainant had failed to produce any document regarding booking of Datsun Redi Go AMT Car (s) neither with her complaint nor with her evidence filed in the commission.
11. In view of above discussion, we find that the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed.
12. Order announced on 19.09.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.