DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.314/2006
Sh. Satya Prakash Gautam
S/o Late Sh. Dilawar Singh,
R/o 2629 , Nai Sarak,
Delhi-110006
Through his son
Sh. Sudhendu Prakash Gautam …… Complainant
Versus
1. Samara Hyundai
B-35, Lajpat Nagart-II
Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, New Delhi-24.
2. Hyundai India Motrors Ltd.
A-30, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi. ..….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 07.06.2006 Date of Order : 03.06.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Complainant’s case, in brief, is that on 07.11.2004 according to the Sales Executive of OP No. 1 there was no ready delivery of Accent Viva CDRI model car which could be delivered only after two months from the date of depositing the booking amount but, however, on the very next day i.e. 08.11.2004 he received a phone call from the same Sales Executive of OP No. 1 who assured him to deliver the car to him on the occasion of “Chhoti Diwali” on 11.11.2004. He had no ready money of Rs. 5,74091/- to be deposited as advance payment. He paid a cheque of Rs.20,000/- dated 09.11.2004 to OP No. 1 and ultimately was given the delivery of the car on 11.11.2004 after his paying the balance amount and the finance arranged from GE Countrywide. The case of the Complainant is that after the first service on 06.12.2004 he and his son came to know that front and rear doors of the right side of the car were damaged and a damaged car had been sold to the Complainant as a new car. Nothing fruitful came out even after representations and service of the legal notices. It is further stated that details of the car i.e. on which date it was transited from Tamil Nadu to Delhi have not been provided to him by the OP. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the Complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing the following directions to the OPs:-
“a) Directing the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 7,00,633/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from 11.11.04 till realization.
b) The Respondent No. 1 be directed to pay a Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the mental harassment and loss of goodwill for driving a damaged car though paid for the new car.
c) That this Hon’ble Forum may please direct the respondent to furnish all the documents in regard to Vehicle No. DL 3 CAB 9440.
- The dispatch voucher from Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Tamil Nadu.
- Transit period from Tamil Nadu to Samara Hyundai, Delhi
- Insurance Company under which the vehicle was insured.
- Date of Transit period.
- The date of delivery of the vehicle of Samara Hyundai.
- The balance sheet for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 ( of Samara Hyundai Lajpat Nagar).”
In its reply OP No. 1 has inter-alia stated as under:-
“That the complainant is guilty of supressio factum. It is submitted that the complainant was sold a brand new car free from any defect, in perfect condition and the same was taken by the complainant after due satisfaction and proper verification. It is submitted that even till the first service there was no complaint. It clearly shows that the complainant might have meet with some accident, subsequently which resulted in damage to the pillar and which liability, the complainant now trying to put on the answering respondent in the grab of this false, baseless and frivolous complaint.”
It is stated that the Complainant was told that the said model car was available and may be delivered on the occasion of Chhoti Diwali. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In its reply OP No. 2 has inter-alia stated that a copy of the factory invoice dated 16.09.2004 in favour of OP No. 1 is Annexure-1. OP-2 has denied any deficiency in service on its part. OP No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinders to the replies of the OPs. In the rejoinder to the reply of OP No. 1 the Complainant has made additional prayers to supply the documents mentioned therein.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. O.K. Bhalla, AR of OP No. 1 and affidavit of Sh. Abhijit Kumar, Senior Officer, Legal & Secretarial on behalf of OP No. 2 have been filed in evidence.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of OP No. 2
Complainant died during the pendency of the complaint and his son Sh. Sudhendu Prakash Gautam has been substituted as Complainant in his place vide order dated 21.02.2011 passed by our predecessors.
None appeared on behalf of the Complainant on 31.01.2014, 14.07.2014, 22.10.2014, 09.04.2015 and 26.05.2015. However Proxy Counsel appeared on his behalf on 29.09.2015 and sought adjournment. However, thereafter none has appeared on behalf of the Complainant though case has been adjourned a number of times.
Arguments have been advanced on behalf of OP No.1. We have also gone through the file. We proceed to decide the matter on merits.
In the legal notice dated 29.01.2015 ( Copy Annexure C-6) the complainant did not state the date of first service though it is mentioned that the first service had been got done in due time. As per the averments made in the notice it was on 07.12.2004 when the son of the Complainant ( substituted Complainant) had noticed the defect in the doors. The complainant has not filed the report of any car repairer or workshop to show that the doors had old damages. This fact could have been easily proved by him by filing any such report/ inspection/ survey report on the file but, however, Complainant has not done so.
There is no material on the record to prove that at the relevant time ready delivery of such cars was not available and there was a waiting period of two months from the date of booking and for this reason the OP No.1 might have given delivery of a damaged car to the complainant on 11.11.2004 though the booking had been made by him on 09.11.2004. This fact also goes against the Complainant. Copy of the factory invoice dated 16.09.2004 issued by OP No. 2 to OP No. 1 is annexure I.
We come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 02.06.2017
