Complainants Rahul and Smt.Manjit Kaur have filed the present complaint against opposite parties (for short O.P.) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer that opposite parties may be directed to refund the booking amount of Rs.45,000/- alongwith interest  @ 18% P.A. from the date of filing of complaint till realization and also to compensate for the loss of insurance amount. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- for causing mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.15,000/- as legal fee, in the interest of justice.

2.     The case of the complainants in brief is that on 28.5.2015, the complainant no.1 got booked VMT (D) Model and paid Rs.45,000/- as booking price to the opposite party no.1 at Gurdaspur office, on which the opposite party no.1 issued Welcome Docket. On 29.5.2015 the opposite party no.1 issued payment receipt of Rs.45,000/- and told that the car would be given to complainants within 60 to 90 days period. On 17.6.2015, the opposite parties called on phone to complainant no.1 that his car is available and complainants can take the delivery for car tomorrow i.e. 18.6.2015 and opposite party no.2 sent remaining amount details (10,74,500+4,000+78,456+11970= Rs.11,68,926 – 45,000/- = Rs.11,23,926/-) to be deposited by the complainants. The complainant no.1 requested to opposite parties no.1 and 2 that he wanted to buy car in his mother’s name i.e. complainant no.2 and also wanted to get the vehicle insured from National Insurance Co. as there was almost Rs.17,000/- difference between complainant no.1 and opposite parties preferred insurance amount. On this, the opposite party no.2 sent details of the car through SMS i.e. Chassis No.MAKGM859FF413904 Engine No.N15A12413076, CC 1498, Diesel, 4+1 Seats, Model Variant Honda City Diesel, VMT Taffeta White to get the vehicle insured. They have further pleaded that the complainant no.1 on 18.6.2015 went to his bank and filled the RTGS form of making online transfer in the account of opposite parties and also got insured the vehicle from National Insurance Co.Ltd., on the basis of above mentioned information with Rs.23,029/- and got the cover note. The complainant no.1 alongwith his friend Akhil Mahajan reached by bus at the office of opposite party no.2 at Amritsar but when he checked the car he was shocked to see that there was no touch screen music system rather it was buttoned music system in the car and the sound quality of this music system was very poor. The complainant no.1 reported this fact to opposite party no.2 and told that it was not the car which he had booked. On this, the official of opposite parties shouted that he had no choice, but to buy the same car and transfer the remaining amount in their account through RTGS. They also mentioned that they are not concerned with his grievances and if he refused to buy the car, his booking fee would not be refunded. On this, he felt insulted, defrauded, cheated by the opposite parties. He immediately called his bank and told to stop the transaction through RTGS and he also called insurance Company to cancel his insurance and to refund his amount of Rs.23,029/- but the insurance company informed that Rs.124/- from the amount would be deducted before refunding. The complainant no.1 reported this fact to opposite parties that the complainant will suffer loss due to opposite parties harshful dealing but the opposite party flatly refused to listen his request so the complainant came back without car. On the next day i.e. 19.6.2015, the complainant no.1 applied for cancellation of insurance and also requested the opposite parties to refund his booking amount i.e. Rs.45,000/- and also submitted the original receipts with opposite party no.1 at Gurdaspur which has not been refunded yet. Hence this complaint.

3.          Upon notice, opposite parties no.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite parties and the complainant has filed the present false complaint by concocting a false story and dragged the opposite parties in false litigation, as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. On merits, it was submitted that after booking the vehicle in question, the complainants intention of the car changed and they were not in a mood to purchase the car so booked by him, so thereafter, he started pointing out that there was no touch screen music system and sound quality of this music system was very poor, whereas they were fully aware about these system much before the booking of the vehicle. Complainant have booked VMT (D) Model City Honda Car. It was totally wrong and denied that the opposite parties told that they are not concerned with the grievances of the complainant no.1 and if the complainant no.1 refused to buy the car, his booking fee will not be refunded. The complainant has set up a false and concocted story. Actually the booking fee paid by the complainant has already been paid to him by the opposite party no.1 much before the filing of this complaint, although there was no lapse on the part of opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW-2/A alongwith other documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, Ex.C4 to Ex.C8, Ex.C-3/1 and Ex.C-3/2 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Sarabjit Singh, Assistant Sales Manager of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-W1/A, of Harish Kumar, Sales Consultant Ex.OP-W2/A and of Rickpinder Singh, Sales Quality Manager Ex.OP7, Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 and Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.

6.         We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of law and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care & caution on the points of fact, as placed before us We observe that the complainants’ sought after relief comprises of refund of the booking amount of Rs.45,000/- along with interest besides a compensatory amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (to the exclusion of legal fee of Rs.15,000/-) for causing mental pain, agony and harassment to him by not providing the allegedly promised/assured accessories in his selected model VMT (D) Honda City Car that he had booked against an advance paid on 28.05.2015. The OP vendors have refutably denied any such promise/assurance having ever made by their representative at Gurdaspur stating that only the accessories designated/ allotted to one model by the Manufacturers are supplied/ offered with that specific car-model and the specified accessories for the selected model VMT (D) are displayed vividly on the model pamphlet duly handed over to the complainant and the same can also be checked on the Honda website. These accessories were duly affixed to the VMT (D) Car selected by and offered to the present complainant who somehow wanted to have ‘accessories’ designated for higher models of Honda City Cars and thus refused to accept ‘delivery’. We find from the Money Receipt Ex.C1 that the complainant paid an advance of Rs.45,000/- and booked the model VMT (D) of the Honda City vide Sales Contract Ex.C6/ Ex.OP1 of 28.05.2015 and thus he was entitled to receive only the accessories designated to the booked model VMT(D), only. The complainant has somehow failed to produce any documentary evidence supporting his claim for ‘superior’ accessories meant for higher ‘models’. The purchase of ‘insurance’ from National Insurance Co Ltd. has been a personal choice of the complainant to save money and there has been no infringement of his consumer rights. Finally, the OP vendors have also refunded the advance of Rs.45,000/- on 07.07.2015 (before the institution of the present complaint on 15.07.2015) received in lieu of car-booking vide Kotak Mohindra Bank cheque # 016469 of 07.07.2015 duly en-cashed by the complainant on 22.07.2015; no residual grievance stays back for redressal. Had the complainant exercised a somewhat legal discrimination with some cautionary patience he need not have filed the present complaint.  In fact, the ‘onus of proof’ to prove the alleged defect, deficiency in service, employment of unfair trade practice and unscrupulous exploitation under the Act lies heavily upon the ‘complainant’ and that the present complainant here has failed to discharge/execute. On the other hand, we find that the OP vendors have produced sufficient evidence by way of affidavits Ex.OPW1/A, Ex.OPW2/A & Ex.OP7 and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 i.e., Sales contract, Ledger account, Bank statement, Account statement etc and others on record to prove absence of defect/misconduct etc under the Act. Under the circumstances, we find that the complainant has not been able to successfully prove the allegations as contented in the present complaint. 

7.       In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint bereft of any actionable merit under the Act and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records. 

                                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                 President.                                                                                        

ANNOUNCED:                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 23, 2015                                                  Member.

*MK*