Haryana

Ambala

CC/212/2012

DAVINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.S.A MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

           Complaint Case No. : 212 of 2011

                       Date of Institution    : 26.07.2012

                          Date of Decision      : 10.03.2017

 

Devinder Singh Saini son of Sh. Ranjit Singh R/o village Chattan P.O. Kakarmajra, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

……Complainant.

Versus

1.         R.S.A. Motors (P) Ltd. Ambala-Chandigarh Highway, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City through its Manager.

2.         R.S.A. Motors (P) Ltd.  Plot No.5, Industrial Area, at present M/s RSA Motors (P) Ltd. Plot No. 2 & 5, Plot No.5, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                       

Present:          None for complainant.

                        Sh. R.K. Vig, Adv. for Ops.

ORDER.                             

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant booked  one LMV car on 20.10.2010 as there was  scheme that in case the vehicle is booked during the month of October 2010, the service, vehicle parts etc. will be made available free of cost for three years as published in the new paper. Complainant further submitted that  at the time of booking of the vehicle, it was assured that the vehicle will be delivered within a week but inspite of the repeated requests  and visits,  the vehicle was not supplied  during the month of October 2010 intentionally and the bill was issued vide no.DM/10-11/834 dated 03.11.2010 for Rs.346394/- and the service of the said vehicle was to be carried out within a year or after running of 15000/- km.  It has been submitted that on 11.05.2012, the complainant went to the OP No.2 for service of the vehicle  and they charged a sum of R s.6000/-  & Rs.844/- on 11.05.2012 despite the fact that the vehicle was purchased while the scheme was floating. Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua deficiency in service and complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant purchased  the  car in question on 04.11.2010 when he tendered the draft  of Punjab & Sind Bank dated 04.11.2010.  It has been submitted that no one claim delivery of the vehicle only on payment of booking amount of Rs.5000/-. It has been stated that  as per undertaking of complainant when he opted for free insurance even though scheme expired in October 2010 and service of the vehicle was carried out as per normal procedure/conditions and thus no one can  claim or go beyond the terms and conditions detailed in the booklet issued at the time of  purchase of the vehicle. Rest of the contents of complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 3.                    To prove his version, complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered affidavit Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-9 and closed the evidence.  

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the OP and gone through the record very carefully. Complainant to prove his case has placed on record Car booking receipt of Rs.5000/- (Annexure C-1), Copy of retail invoice of vehicle dated 03.11.2010 (Anneuxre C-2). From the above documents, it is  clear that  the complainant has booked the car with the OP on 20.10.2010 and it was delivered to him  on 03.11.2010.  The grievance of the complainant is that the OP have charged Rs.5066/- and Rs.844/- on account of service of the vehicle vide Annexure C-3 and C-4 dated 11.05.2012 but counsel for complainant has  stressed on the scheme floated by the Ops vide advertisement Annexure C-5 wherein it has been written that  the scheme is only available for October Month.  Admittedly, the vehicle has been delivered to the complainant in the month of November 2011 by OP but the counsel for OP has argued that only by getting booked the vehicle with the OP by depositing initial amount, the complainant does not entitle  to get the vehicle because the amount is only for the purpose that the complainant is interested in purchasing the said model of vehicle but the vehicle is released to a person only after getting full amount of the vehicle from a purchaser. Since, in this case, the complainant has paid the value of the vehicle to the OP of Rs.3,50,738/-  vide cheque no.881868  dated 04.11.2010 and vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 04.11.2010.

                        In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get benefit of the scheme as alleged in the complainant because the scheme had already been closed in the month of October 2010 whereas the vehicle was delivered on 04.11.2010. Hence, the complaint having no substance is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED:10.03.2017                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                                   (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT

                       

                                                                                                          Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                              MEMBER