Delhi

North East

CC/133/2016

Randhir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sterling Honda Automobile Sterling Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 133/16

 

In the matter of:

 

		Randhir Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Dass R/o 26, Chhatta Lal Mian, Darya Ganj,             New Delhi-110002.		Complainant
		Versus
		M/s Sterling Honda Automobile Sterling (I) Pvt. Ltd. Through its General Manager/Directors/ M.D. / Authorized Representatives/Sales Manager ZB-45-46/487, Opposite Metro Station Dilshad Garden, G.T. Road, Shahdara, New Delhi-110095.		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		19.05.2016
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		05.12.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		12.12.2017

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

Order by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

 

ORDER

1. Brief summary of the complaint filed by the complainant is that in December 2015, the complainant had approached the OP for purchase of New SMT Jazz Non Metalic Valleta White Car for Rs. 6,54,464/- to gift the same to his daughter namely Gitanjali for her wedding which was scheduled for 22.02.2016 and on the assurance of the OP for delivery on or before the wedding day, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 21,000/- in cash as earnest money to the OP and a sales contract dated 21.12.2015 was executed between Ms. Geetanjali, daughter of the complainant and the OP by noting ‘Marriage Gift’ and the tentative date of its delivery was given by OP as 22.02.2016. However on 18.02.2016 and 20.02.2016, despite visit by the complainant alongwith the balance amount of the car to the showroom of the OP for taking delivery of the car, the sales consultant / representative of the OP flatly refused the complainant delivery of the said car without any reason. This act of OP caused humiliation and disrespect to the complainant in front of his relatives and his daughter’s in-laws, suffering and the complainant has alleged that by breach of contract and refusal to deliver the said car, OP has caused wrongful gain to itself at the cost of causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Lastly the complainant had served the OP with legal notice dated 16.03.2016 which despite receipt by the OP was not replied to the OP. Therefore, vide this present complaint, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP and has prayed that OP be directed to :-

1. Refund the amount of Rs. 21,000/- to the complainant being the booking amount paid in advance by the complainant to OP.
2. Pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-  to the complainant for damages
3. Pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for harassment mental agony in inconvenience cause to the complainant on account of deficiency in service by the OP.
4. Pay interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainant on the awarded amount from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
5. Cost of proceedings / litigation to the complainant.

 

2. Notice was issued to OP and the OP filed its written statement on 08.11.2016 where it took the preliminary objection that firstly no payment/advance whatsoever was made by the complainant to the OP on 21.12.2015. Secondly, the date of delivery in the sales contract was TENTATIVE for 22.02.2016 and the complainant was pressing the OP repeatedly for a confirmed date of delivery, which given the waiting period of months for the relevant model, the OP had clearly refused to give to the complainant. Thirdly, the OP argued that the complainant had actually made an advance payment on 05.02.2016 of Rs. 21,000/- in view of the contract on 28.01.2016. The OP further submitted that the “Backside Of The Terms And Conditions” “Of The Sales Contract” which the complainant intentionally did not filed, clearly postulated that no claims will be made against the OP for delayed delivery and that the delivery date indicated was only tentative subject to receipt and realization of full payment. The OP also submitted that the complainant has failed to substantiate the contention of being capable of making full payment for the subject vehicle on the alleged date of his visits to OP made on 18.02.2016 and 20.02.2016. Lastly, the OP refuted allegation of misrepresentation or cheating or breach on the part of OP made by the complainant and therefore even otherwise complainant is not entitled to any refund, compensation cost an interest.   
3. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties placing on record material documentary evidence in support of their case / defence. However, the complainant did not place on record any proof of factum of wedding of his daughter for the alleged date.  
4. Written arguments were also file by both the parties as synopsis in support and continuation of their previous pleadings.
5. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties. An attempt was made by this Forum at the final stage of the proceedings to facilitate an amicable settlement that could be arrived at between the parties since the issue was not very complicated on contentious in nature and was that of refund of the booking amount of the said car. However, the OP was adamant that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP and the OP had no Locus Standi in as much as sales contract dated 21.02.2015 and payment receipt dated 05.02.2016 were executed between Ms. Geetanjali daughter of the complainant and the OP and compromise if any, could only be effected with Ms. Geetanjali and in absence of any power of attorney given by her in favour of the complainant, no compromise or refund can be effected or entered into with the complainant. Such an argument however finds no mention either in the written statement or evidence or arguments filed and forwarded by the OP which clearly shows that the OP is reluctant to refund the booking amount on grounds which are an afterthought. On the other hand, the complainant also failed to address or rectify this issue when raised by the OP for the complainant to be duly authorized vide a power of attorney or an authorization letter to effect settlement. Notwithstanding the adamancy shown by both the sides resulting in breakdown of settlement, ends of justice should not be defeated or compromised within the quagmire of lame defences or minor technical glitches. The fact cannot be negated that the OP has admittedly received Rs. 21,000/- from the complainant toward the booking advance amount with respect to the subject car and the OP could not deliver the same on or before the desired date preferred by the complainant i.e. 22.02.2016 even though the same was tentative as per the OP. Therefore it was unfair on the part of OP to have withheld the release of earnest deposit of the complainant.
6. We therefore, find OP guilty of unfair trade practice for having wrongfully withheld the booking amount paid by the complainant to the OP and direct the OP to pay to the complainant :-

1. Rs. 21,000/- as refund of the booking amount of the car alongwith interest @ of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
2. Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and inconvenience and inclusive of litigation charges.     

7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 12.12.2017)

(N.K. Sharma)          President

(Sonica Mehrotra)         Member