Haryana

Panchkula

CC/213/2017

VIRENDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RENAULT INDIA PVT.LTD.(RIPL). - Opp.Party(s)

TARUN KUMAR

10 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA

                                                      

Consumer Complaint No	:	213 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	20.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	10.09.2019

 

 

Virender Kumar son of Sh. Madan Lal, resident of Ward No.7, H.No.213, Near Vishwakarma Chowk, Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

 

                                                                   ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     Renault India Private Limited(RIPL)- Head Office, ASV Ramana Towers #37-38, 4^th Floor, Venkataarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017.

2.     Renault India Private Limited(RIPL)-Sales & Marketing, Plot No.11, Third Floor, Sector-32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon-122002.

3.     Renault India Private Limited (RIPL)- Regional Officer, 502, 5th Floor, Town Centre-II, Sakinaka, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059.

4.     M/s Padam Motors Pvt/ Ltd. C/o Renault Tricity Panchkula, #363, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Panchkula, Haryana.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Arvinder Arora, Advocate for complainant.

None for the OPs No.1 to 3.

None for OP No.4.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that  on dated 02.05.2016, the complainant has booked a car Model KWID-RXT through payment of Rs.20,000/- as advance  token money vide receipt no.40-S dated 02.05.2016 with OP No.4. Thereafter due to insufficient money(fund), complainant has applied for the cancellation of booking  of the above said car Model KWID-RXT on dated 07.9.2016 by submitting cancellation form/Booking Refund Form as provided by OP No.4 and same was received by the official of OP No.4 and same was acknowledged by the authorized representative of OP No. 4 and the complainant was assured  in writing that the above said booking amount i.e. Rs.20,000/- would be refunded  within a period of 25 days from the date of submission of cancellation form/booking refund form dated 07.09.2016. After one month, the complainant asked the OP No.4 to refund the booking amount of Rs.20,000/- but OP No.4 has not refunded the said booking amount and thereafter he made several requests  to the OP No.4 but inspite of repeated requests OP No.4 failed to refund the booking amount till date.On 27.01.2017, he served a legal notice upon the OPs No.1 to 4 through his counsel but he has not received any reply from OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and baseless; no cause of action. On merits, OPs No.1 to 3 stated that OP No.1 is marketing vehicles of Renault Brand and sells vehicles to its authorized dealers. It is submitted that there is no role or control of the OP No.1 in further sale of the vehicles by such dealers to any prospective buyer. In the instant case, the OP No.4 is authorized dealer of the OP No.1. The relation between the OP No.1 and OP No.4 is not that of ‘Principal to Agent’ but ‘Principal to Principal’ basis. The OP No.1 is not involved in day to day workings of the OP No.2. The OP No.1 and OP No.4 are different legal entities which carry their respective business dealings without each other’s interference. The OP No.1 is not involved in day to day workings of the OP No.2. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 to 3.

                Upon notice OP No.4 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and baseless. On merits, OP No.4 stated that no such transaction took place and no receipt was issued by the OP No.4 for receiving of advance amount. Further, no cancellation form was received by the OP and no acknowledgment was issued by the OP. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.4 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             The learned counsel for complainant has tendered the affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP No.4 has tendered the Affidavit Annexure R-4/A and closed the evidence. The evidence on behalf of OPs No. 1 to 3 has been closed by Forum order dated 09.07.2019.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record minutely and carefully. None is appearing on behalf of OPs No.1 to 3 with effect from 29.05.2019. Similarly none is present on behalf of OP No.4 with effect from 25.07.2019. On 25.07.2019 the case was adjourned to 07.08.2019 for arguments. However, none appeared on 07.08.2019 and it was clarified that if the parties or their counsels failed to appear on the next date of hearing, the matter shall be decided on the basis of record available in file and case adjourned to 21.08.2019. Again none appeared on behalf of OPS No.1 to 3 and OP No.4 on 21.08.2019 and case was adjourned to 27.08.2019. On 27.08.2019 again none appeared on behalf of OPS No.1 to 3 and OP No.4 and case was adjourned to 30.08.2019 for arguments. On 30.08.2019 none has put an appearance on behalf of the OPs No.1 to 3 and OP No.4 and thus, we have no option except to decide the case on the basis of record available on the file.

5.             The sole controversy involved in this complaint revolves around the question as to whether the complainant had made a payment of an amount of Rs.20,000/-to the OP No.4 vide receipt no.40-S dated 02.05.2016 as reflected vide (Annexure C-1) and Booking Refund Form(Annexure C-2) dated 07.09.2016. The learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the facts as contained in the complaint which is supported with Affidavit C/A alongwith Annexure C-1 to C-4 contended that the complainant had booked a vehicle by making a payment of an amount of Rs.20,000/-  in cash to OP No.4 vide receipt no.40-S(Annexure C-1). In this regard the learned counsel placed reliance upon the booking refund form Annexure C-2 and the hand written slip dated 07.09.2016 Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-2(Colly).

 6.    The OP No.4 has denied the payment of Rs.20,000/- to have been made by the complainant to it as alleged by the complainant. With regard to receipt of  amount of Rs.20,000/- it is submitted that the booking refund form Annexure C-2 alongwith the hand written slip dated 07.09.2016 Annexure C-2(Colly) were never executed by OP No.4. It is stated that the claim of the complainant is baseless and devoid of any merits and the same deserves dismissal.

7.             The OPs No.1 to 3 has alleged that there is a relationship on principal to principal basis between the OP No.1 and OP No.4 and not on the basis of principal to agent. It has been submitted that for any lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.4, the OPs No. 1 to 3 cannot be blamed or burdened with any liability having financial implications.

8.             Since OP No.4 has doubted the genuineness of booking refund form (Annexure C-2) as well as hand written slip dated 07.09.2016 Annexure C-2(Colly), hence, it becomes necessary for us to peruse the said documents closely and minutely. For the sake of the convenience, the booking refund form Annexure C-2 is reproduced as below:

Booking Refund Form

To,

The Manager,

Padam Renault/Chevrolet

Panchkula

Subject:-Booking Refund Request

I had  booked  one Car Model Kwid-RXT on dated 02.05.2016 vide receipt no.40-S of amount 20000/- RupessTwenty Thousand only (in words) in name of Virender Kumar S/o Madan Lal Mobile No.9416070531  Residence of W.No7. H.No.213 Near Vishavkarma Chowk, Naraingarh, Ambala. Booking cancelation charges (if applicable) Nil. Now I want  take my booking amount back as  I have cancelled  my booking due to Due to Insufficient money (Fund) Original receipts are enclosed with the application alongwith my residence proof  (Original copy of Affidavit from Customer in case original  receipts lost by customer).

Net Refund amount (after cancelation charges) 20000/-

Customer Name as per bank records (for cheque) Virender Kumar s/o Madan Lal

With regards                               Application received by Akhil                                                          (Designation)      Sales

(Customer sign)                          Date:                 07.09.2016

Payment of Rs.20,000/-(Rs.Twenty thousand only) will be refunded after 25 days from the date of cancellation form, cancellation form is submitted on 07.09.2016.

9.             A bare perusal of above refund form leaves no scope for any doubt in any manner with regard to the execution of the refund form Annexure C-2 as also the hand written slip dated 07.09.2016 Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-2(Colly) as we find that the booking refund form Annexure C-2 contains the exact receipt number i.e. 40-S vide which payment of Rs.20,000/-has been alleged to have been received by OP No.4. Moreover the aforesaid documents i.e. booking refund form Annexure C-2 and the hand written slip Annexure C-2(Colly) have been found bearing the seal and signature over it.  We are of the considered view that in the presence of the clear recital about the receipt number i.e. 40-S in the booking refund form Annexure C-2, it was incumbent upon the OP No.4 to produce or submit the receipt no.40-S as well as its bank account statement alongwith the copy of its account ledger so as to falsify and contradict the contention of the complainant with regard to the payment of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of booking of vehicle with OP No.4. However, the OP No.4 has preferred not to produce any aforesaid documents to falsify the version of the complainant. It is well settled law that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value and thus, in the present case, we do not find any force and substance in the bald assertions of the OP No.4 that booking refund form Annexure C-2 as also the written slip dated 07.09.2016 Annexure C-2(Colly) has not been executed by it.

10.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP No.4 while not refunding the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant which had been received by it; hence, the complainant is  entitled to relief. The complaint is dismissed qua OPs No.1 to 3 as no deficiency has alleged against them.

11.            With regard to the relief it may be mentioned here that a sum of Rs.2000/- is liable to be deducted as booking cancellation charges as per terms and conditions of the receipt no.40-S(Annexure C-1). Therefore, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.18000/- out of Rs.20000/- after making a deduction of Rs.2000/- as cancellation charges.   

12.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP No.4:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.18,000/-(Rs.20000-2000) to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/-as cost of litigation charges.

 

13.            The OP No.4 shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OP No.4. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:10.09.2019

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

        Member                           Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                Satpal                                        

President