Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/125/2017

AJAY WAGUZARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

RENAULT JAMMU - Opp.Party(s)

NITISH BHAN

19 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

                (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                         

 Case File  No                 495/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution     29-03-2017

 Date of Decision          03-05-2018

 

Ajay Waguzuri,

S/O Bushan Lal Waguzuri,

R/O Lane No.1 T.P.City Colony,

Trilokpur Camp,Gole Gujral,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                Complainant

                  V/S

1.Renault Jammu,

A Unit of Autobahn Motors Pvt.Ltd.

NH-1 Kaluchak,Jammu.

2.Renault India Pvt.Ltd.

 Through its General Manager,

 Plot No.11 3^rd Floor Sector-32,

Industrial Area,Gurgaon.

                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)  President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                              Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                         Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Juvraj Bhushan,Advocate for complainant, present.

Nemo for Ops.

                                                               ORDER.

                  Grievance of complainant lies in short compass, in that allegation of complainant is that being allured by the claims made by OP2 with respect to quality and performance of their cars,he decided to purchase Renault Kiwid from OP1 on,20-04-2016 ,he booked a white colour Renault Kiwid Ext.800cc from the showroom of OP1 and paid booking amount of Rs.30,000/-in cash vide receipt No.2882 and booking form No.3907 on the assurance that the selected car will be handed over to him in the month of September,2016,but OP1 failed to deliver the car within the stipulated period thereby did not keep its promise.According to complainant,in the month of September,2016 he came to know that OP2 has launched a new variant of the car already booked by him which was an upgraded version i.e.Renault Kiwid 1000 cc,on,05-09-2016 he requested OP1 that since the OP has failed to deliver the car already booked by him within the stipulated period,now as the new variant of the car is in the market be delivered to him which was accepted by OP1 and further assured that the delivery of new variant i.e. Renault Kiwid 1000 cc will be delivered to him in the month of November,2016. Allegation of complainant is that in the month of November,2016 OP1 again failed to provide delivery of the car on the pretext that Renault Kiwid 1000cc is not available in the showroom of OP1,because the company could not supply the car in the market due to alleged strike by the workers in their manufacturing plant and OP1 gave further assurance that the car will be delivered on,25-01-2017.Complainant further submitted that even on,25-01-2017 he had to face humiliation when he was not provided the delivery of the car, as such he was left with no other option to bring the matter to the notice of OP2 and on,27-01-2017,he brought the matter to the notice of OP2 by lodging a complaint through customer care and the OP2 after listening the grievance of complainant assured him that the matter will be sort out and strict action will be taken in this regard, but till date nothing has been done. Constrained by the act of Ops,complainant served legal notice upon OP2,but the same did not yield any fruitful result. Hence the present complaint. Therefore according to complainant non payment of advance amount and further harassment meted out to complainant at the hands of OPs amounts to deficiency in service, as such, complainant prays for compensation under different heads and also repayment of Rs.30,000/-,i.e. advance booking amount.

                  On the other hand,Op filed written version and while denying the allegation of complainant in toto,went on to submit that complainant in the present complaint has falsely alleged that the answering Op has failed to deliver the car i.e.Kiwid Rxt 800cc to the complainant in time which was booked by him on,20-04-2016 because when OP1 called the complainant before the due date to take the delivery of the car which 800cc ,he refused to take the delivery of car with the request to OP1 to provide him the new variant of said car which was 1000cc launched by the company after booking of the car by the complainant and therefore complainant has falsely alleged that OP1 has not delivered the vehicle to him as per the assurance and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

                      On the other hand, despite notice issued to OP2,it failed to take any action to represent its case before the Forum within statutory period, therefore, vide order dated,11-08-2017,right of OP2 to file written version was closed.           

               The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavits of Sunil Kumar Thusoo and Kamal Jeet Singh,respectively.The complainant has placed on record copy of receipt book, copy of letter written by complainant to OP for delivery of car and copies of mails.

                      Although OP1 filed written version, but after availing numerous opportunities failed to lead any evidence, therefore, unsubstantiated averments contained in the written version of OP1 cannot overweigh the evidence lead by the complainant.

                     We have perused the case file and also heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

                             Briefly stated case of complainant is that being allured by the claims made by OP2 with respect to quality and performance of their cars, he decided to purchase Renault Kiwid from OP1 on,20-04-2016 ,he booked a white colour Renault Kiwid Ext.800cc from the showroom of OP1 and paid booking amount of Rs.30,000/-in cash vide receipt No.2882 and booking form No.3907 on the assurance that the selected car will be handed over to him in the month of September,2016,but OP1 failed to deliver the car within the stipulated period thereby did not keep its promise. According to complainant, in the month of September,2016 he came to know that OP2 has launched a new variant of the car already booked by him which was an upgraded version i.e.Renault Kiwid 1000 cc,on,05-09-2016 he requested OP1 that since the OP has failed to deliver the car already booked by him within the stipulated period, now as the new variant of the car is in the market be delivered to him which was accepted by OP1 and further assured that the delivery of new variant i.e. Renault Kiwid 1000 cc will be delivered to him in the month of November,2016. Allegation of complainant is that in the month of November,2016 OP1 again failed to provide delivery of the car on the pretext that Renault Kiwid 1000cc is not available in the showroom of OP1,because the company could not supply the car in the market due to alleged strike by the workers in their manufacturing plant and OP1 gave further assurance that the car will be delivered on,25-01-2017.Complainant further submitted that even on,25-01-2017 he had to face humiliation when he was not provided the delivery of the car, as such he was left with no other option to bring the matter to the notice of OP2 and on,27-01-2017,he brought the matter to the notice of OP2 by lodging a complaint through customer care and the OP2 after listening the grievance of complainant assured him that the matter will be sort out and strict action will be taken in this regard, but till date nothing has been done. Constrained by the act of Ops,complainant served legal notice upon OP2,but the same did not yield any fruitful result.

                  On the other hand,defence of OP1 is that complainant in the present complaint has falsely alleged that the answering Op has failed to deliver the car i.e.Kiwid Rxt 800cc to the complainant in time which was booked by him on,20-04-2016 because when OP1 called the complainant before the due date to take the delivery of the car which 800cc ,he refused to take the delivery of car with the request to OP1 to provide him the new variant of said car which was 1000cc launched by the company after booking of the car by the complainant and therefore complainant has falsely alleged that OP1 has not delivered the vehicle to him as per the assurance and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

 

               In order to substantiate his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavits of Sunil Kumar Thusoo and Kamal Jeet Singh,respectively.Complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint, therefore, same need no repetition. On the other hand, despite OP1 was granted ample opportunities to support its version by leading evidence, but it failed to lead iota of evidence in support of its version.Therefore,version of OP1 went unsubstantiated, unsupported and uncorroborated by cogent evidence, so much so, written version filed by OP1 is also not supported by affidavit of OP1,therefore,same being bereft of  legal strength, hence, cannot be read in evidence.

               On the other hand, in support of his allegations that complainant , complainant placed on record copy of receipt of application for allotment of plot. At the same time, complainant has also placed on record copies of communications and copies of legal notices and perusal whereof reveals that the complainant repeatedly approached Ops for allotment of plot and deposit of balance amount of plot . Therefore we have no reason to discard with the prayer made by complainant for allotment of plot in view of supportive material placed on record.