Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/643

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sandeep Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Tajender K. Joshi

27 Jan 2016

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,                                 PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.643 of 2013

 

                                                Date of Institution: 10.06.2013

                                                Date of Decision:  27.01.2016

 

Mr. Manish Arora s/o late Sh. K.C Arora, resident of # 518, Guru Govind Singh Avenue, G.T Road, Jalandhar City.

 

                                                                      …Appellant/Complainant

                             Versus

 

1.      Renault India, Office No.108, Patlipada, Near HDFC Bank,      Ghodbhunder Road, Thane West, R Thane 400607, through its   Managing Director/Chairman.

 

2.      Padam Cars Private Limited, Renault Office, 8th Mile Stone,   Gill Patti, Bhatinda through its Managing Director and

 

3.      Padam Cars Private Limited, Renault Office, G.T Road, Bye   Pass Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                            ..Respondents /Opposite Parties

                                                           

First Appeal against order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Jalandhar.

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.H.S.Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                             : Ms. Kavita Sharma, Advocate

          For the respondent no.1       : Ex-parte

          For the respondent no.2 & 3         : Sh. Amit Gupta, Advocate.         

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 16.04.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar, accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to refund the already deposited amount of Rs.10 lac along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of copy of the amount till the refund of the amount, besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant in this appeal for enhancement of the amount.

2.      The complainant Manish Arora has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that complainant purchased the Car from OP no.3 for payment of Rs.10 lac leaving a nominal balance to OP No.3 towards its cost, charges of accessories, insurance and registration certificate by way of cheque no.167462 dated 17.09.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank Limited Jalandhar and draft no.144224 dated 18.9.2012 drawn on State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Jalandhar Branch. The car in question was manufactured by OP No.1 and OP No.2 is dealer of OP No.1. The OPs were to deliver a Duster RXI 85 Silver Colour Car to complainant after receipt of its full payment. The complainant agreed to take the delivery of the same from OP within 15 days of its booking date. The complainant has not been delivered the car by OPs, despite his written requests. The complainant served legal notice on 1.11.2012, but to no effect. The complainant has been harassed by the OPs. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.10 lac with interest @ 24% per annum, besides Rs.2 lac as compensation for non-delivery of the car.

3.      Defence of OP No.1 was struck off by District Forum, vide order dated 01.03.2013.

4.      OP No. 2 and 3 filed joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not legally maintainable. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint. It was averred in written reply by OP No.2 and 3 that complainant has filed the false complaint. OP No.3 intimated the complainant that booking time for Renault Duster RXL 85 PS Grey Colour Car  was for three months and OPs was to provide the car according to booking system, as soon as, possible and informed the complainant that it had ordered a Renault Duster RXL 85 PS Grey Colour Car from corporate office of Renault India at Chennai and OPs were expected to get the delivery of the same very soon and OPs showed to the complainant the copy of commercial invoice dated 11.09.2012 regarding placement of order of above-said car to the complainant.  The complainant booked Renault Duster RXL 85 PS Grey Colour Car with OP No.3. It was specifically made clear to the complainant that delivery of Renault Duster RXL 85 PS Grey Colour Car would be made when the car was received from corporate office of Renault India at Chennai. OP No.3 intimated the complainant many times to take the delivery of the car, but complainant refused to take the delivery thereof. On the proforma invoice bearing no.15254 and receipt dated 18.09.12 issued to complainant, it was specifically mentioned as RXL 85 PS Grey .The complainant got booked RXL 85 Grey Colour Car with OP No.3 and subsequently OP No.3 arranged the above-said car for delivery to complainant, but complainant refused to take the delivery of the car, as booked by him and filed the present complaint. On merits, it was denied that complainant was desirous of purchasing a Renault Duster RXI 85 Silver Colour Car. On proforma invoice bearing no.15254 and receipt dated 18.09.2012 issued to the complainant, it was specifically mentioned that RXL 85 PS Grey Colour car was sought to be purchased by the complainant only. The complainant was intimated many times the delivery of the car, but to no effect. OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Sales Head Padam Cars Private Limited G.T Road Jalandhar Ex.R-A along with copies of documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Jalandhar, accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 16.04.2013. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Jalandhar dated 16.04.2013, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case as respondent no.1 is exparte in this appeal.

7.      From appraisal of evidence and hearing respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we have come to this conclusion that OP No.3 is branch office of OP no.2. The cause of action accrued at Jalandhar, where the payment for purchase of car was made by the complainant to OPs. The complainant booked the car with OP No.3 and made the full payment of Rs.10 lac leaving a nominal balance to OP No.3 towards its costs, charges of accessories, insurance and registration certificate by way of cheque no.167462 dated 17.09.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank, Jalandhar and draft no.144224 dated 18.09.2012 drawn on State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jalandhar Branch. The submission of counsel for the complainant is that delivery of the car was to be made to the complainant after receipt of its full payment. The complainant agreed to take the delivery of the car from the OPs within 15 days of its booking. The OPs have not delivered the car to the complainant despite their commitment. The complainant served a legal notice dated 01.11.2012 in this regard, as well as, through registered post. The submission of OPs is that complaint is pre-mature. The complainant agreed to purchase the car and OP No.3 informed the complainant that it would take three months period from receipt of delivery of the car from Chennai. The complainant was shown placement of the order for the car in question, but complainant was interested in exclusively buying Grey Colour Car only. It was made clear to complainant that he would get delivery of Grey Colour Car as and when it was received from Chennai by OP No.3. The complainant was accordingly informed to take delivery of the car, but to no effect.

8.      From conclusion of above-referred evidence on the record and pleadings of the parties, it is proved that complainant paid Rs.10 lac to OPs for purchase of the car, almost price of the car was paid to OPs except charges of accessories, insurance and registration certificate thereof, which is quite nominal.  The delivery of the car was not made to the complainant by the OPs. We do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the OPs to this effect. There is no question of pre-mature filing of the complaint. The complainant was to purchase the car from the OPs by paying money. The complainant is definitely 'consumer' of the OPs. The cause of action accrued at Jalandhar. The payment was made by the complainant at branch office of OP no.3, which is also at Jalandhar. We find no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum calling for any interference therein. The order passed by the District Forum is quite sustainable in the eyes of law. The complainant now appellant has sought enhancement of compensation and we are of this view that the District Forum has already awarded interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant on the deposited amount of Rs.10 lac, which would sufficiently compensate the complainant. We do not find any merit in the appeal preferred by the appellant. 

9.      As a result of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.01.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                           (H.S GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

January 27, 2016                                                                

(ravi)