Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that the complainant approached OP’s showroom for purchasing a one Maruti Car Model Celerio VXI (O) CNG with ABS (Both air bags). It is stated that on 22.01.2016 the complainant booked above mentioned car with the OP and regarding this the complainant had paid Rs.5000/- to the OP. The OP  furnished receipt and tentative delivery  date was fixed 19.02.2016 on receipt. It is further stated that after expire of delivery date the complainant contacted the OP for delivery of Maruti Car  but the OP have not proper  reply to the complainant therefore the complainant lodge a complaint bearing no.6002009019 at Maruti  Customer Care but till date no any action was taken from any site.
2. It is stated that complainant has informed to the OP about this  discrepancy but the  OP straight away denied and  warned that the complainant never purchase any Maruti Car. It is stated that if do  so than will face dire consequence. It is further stated that OP connivance with his staff i.e Mr. Jitendra and Suresh Yadav played fraud with the complainant and the OP and his staff committed an offence which was punished under section 420 of IPC. It is stated that complainant has to attend great loss from discrepancy of the OP because being Doctor the  complainant attend many Hospitals day to day and the complainant have not any car, at present time it is very necessary for the complainant therefore the complainant approached to the OP for the same. It is stated that complainant has also sent legal notice dated 14.03.2016, which is duly served upon the OP.
3. It is stated that the complainant is seeking direction to OP to deliver the Maruti Car Model Celerio VXI (O) CNG with ABS (bother air bags), to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for physical and mental harassment and agony caused to complainant, to pay the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and any other further order which deems fit and proper.
4. OP has filed WS and taken preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall within the definitions of complainant as defined in Section 2 of Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the complaint merits dismissal with exemplary costs. It is stated that the complainant has not come before this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has placed wrong facts as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further stated that the present complaint is without any cause of action qua the answering OP. It is stated that the present complaint is filed with sole malafied intentions to drag the answering OP and harass the answering OP by frivolous litigation, the complaint merits dismissal with costs. It is further stated that the complainant has not supplied the copies of Annexures annexed with the complaint and has mentioned to the same in the complaint. The answering OP reserves his rights to amend the WS after receiving the copies of the annexures. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable in the present. It is further stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as such merits dismissal with costs.
5. On merit all the allegations made in the complainant are denied by OP and reiterated contents of preliminary objection. The OP admitted the fact that complainant had visited the showroom of OP for booking of Maruti Celerio VXI (O) CNG with ABS and it was informed that ABS model was not ready but the company intends to launch very shortly. It is further stated that at the insistence of complainant the car was booked and tentative date of delivery was given 22.01.2016. It is stated that complainant even neglected and failed to spell any incident neither in the notice nor in the complaint. It is stated that OP had replied the notice of complainant on 01.04.2016. It is stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. As per record no rejoinder filed by complainant to the WS.
7. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint and denied all the allegations made in the WS therein.
8. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Rana H.S. Rekhi Director and reiterated all the allegations made in the complainant. OP  relied on reply to  notice 01.04.2016 and registration receipts Ex.RW1/1 and Ex.RW1/2.
9. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as by OP.
10. We have heard Ms. Neha Malik counsel for complainant and Sh. Nikhil Choleman HR Manager for OP and per used the record.
11. It is admitted fact of the parties that on 22.01.2016 complainant booked Maruti car model Celerio VXI (O) CNG with ABS and paid Rs. 5000/- and OP issued a receipt. As per allegation tentatively delivery date given to complainant by OP 19.02.2016 but car was not delivered. A complaint was also lodged with customer care but no action taken. According to OP complainant was informed that at the relevant time ABS model was not ready but company intend it to launch shortly. There is no documentary proof filed by complainant that OP has given tentative date of delivery on 19.02.2016. the complainant did not challenge the allegation of OP in the evidence that on 12.03.2016 when complainant visited OP’s showroom then he was required to pay entire cost of the car and car was on hold for delivery to complainant. These facts established on record that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant alleged in para-5 of the complaint that staff of OP namely Sh. Jitender and Sh. Suresh Yadav played fraud and committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. The law is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of “Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Another (2000) 1 SCC 66, Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines Kolkata and Another Vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and others (2020) 9 SCC 424 and The Chairman and Managing Director, city Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs R. Chandramohan in civil appeal no.7289 of 2009 decided on 27.03.2023 (Supreme Court)”.  The consumer commission/forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate allegation of fraud or cheating.
13. On the basis of above observation and discussion present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
14. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  03.04.2024.

      SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER