ORDER

20.02.2024

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

1. In  brief  facts of the complaint  are that on 22.02.2010, complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- through cheque with OP for booking of EECO Maruti Car. At the time of booking the officials of the OP assured complainant that the vehicle would be delivered within two three months. It is further alleged by the complainant that in the month of May, 2010 complainant received telephonic call from OP thereby informing him to deposit the further amount against the vehicle in question. It is further alleged that as per the direction of OP on 20.05.2010, complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,18,151/- through cheque by way of auto loan with OP, but OP failed to deliver the vehicle in question. On 13.06.2010 complainant received a letter from OP thereby informing him to get his vehicle serviced whereas the complainant has not received the delivery of the vehicle. It is further alleged that due to payment of entire cost of the vehicle to OP Bank started charging EMIs against the loan and complainant had to pay it in a compelling situation whereas the vehicle was never delivered to him.
2. Finally, on 16.07.2010, OP delivered the vehicle to the complainant after continuous pursuation and complaint. The complainant was bound to pay enhance cost of Rs.3,24,000/- instead of Rs. 3,18,151/- due to deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is further alleged that after various complaints, RTIs and police complaints the OP finally refunded a sum of Rs. 4,151/- on 07.05.2012. It is alleged by the complainant that from the day of booking of the vehicle till the date of delivery due to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice adopted by the officials of the OP, the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss for which he is entitled for compensation as well as litigation cost, hence, this complaint.  
3. OP filed its reply vide which it is stated that the complaint under reply is barred by limitation and may be dismissed on this short ground alone. The complaint under reply has been filed post expiry of two years from the date of alleged accrual of cause of action.
4. The OP herein seeks to put forth that vehicle as booked by the complainant on 22.02.2010 was a Maruti Suzuki EECO-5 Seater Multi-Utility Vehicle. The OP herein further seeks to state that booking sum for Rs. 10,000/- was tendered by the complainant by way of cheque bearing number 912957 dated 22.02.2010.
5. It is further stated that complainant sometime during May, 2010 requested for substitution and change of variant & colour originally booked with a new variant & colour. Expressly speaking, the complainant went for substitution of Silky Silver request for change/substitution was conceded to by OP herein subject to condition of additional waiting period which was agreed to by the complainant. The said vehicle was finally delivered to the complainant on 16.07.2010. The OP herein at this stage would further like to state that the complainant on 24.05.2010 was offered delivery of vehicle originally booked which was declined for reason above. The latter further agreed to bear additional waiting period to fetch delivery of the other variant. The change opted for by the complainant was voluntary. So was his decision to bear additional waiting period till the said vehicle was made available. As the OP herein would like to reiterate & emphasize that such vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 16.07.2010. An additional sum of Rs. 4,181.00/- was collected from the complainant to offset increase in vehicle cost. The OP herein at this stage would like to maintain that price chargeable and recoverable from a purchaser is the price prevailing as on date of sale/delivery of the vehicle. Based, hereupon, the OP herein would like to vehemently deny that the complainant was subjected to increase recovery in terms of vehicle cost. Such price was inclusive of vehicle insurance valid w.e.f. 16^th July, 2010 until expiry of one year on 15^th July, 2011. The correspondence claimed to have been issued by OP on 13.06.2010 is the result of an inadvertent error on the part of consumer service personnel who could not be communicated refusal by the complainant to proceed with his earlier offer for purchase of EECO 5 seater. Such refusal as the OP herein would like to state did not happen before 24.05.2010 which may be juxtaposed with service due date as referred to in the correspondence under reference. The said correspondence refers to the service due date as 24.06.2010 which is exactly a month later from date of refusal and/or initial proposed purchase date i.e 24.05.2010. One month is the standard period at the end of which first maintenance service becomes due. It is further stated that the claim of delay in delivery of subject vehicle is wholely misconceived, hence, needs to be dismissed with cost.
6. Complainant filed rejoinder and reiterated the contents of complaint.
7. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. Complainant relied on copy of proforma invoice dated 04.05.2010 Ex.CW1/1, copy of letter dated 13.06.2010 Ex.CW1/2, copy of letter dated 22.06.2010 Ex.CW1/3, copy of complaints dated 26.09.2011 and 22.12.2011 Ex.CW1/4 and Ex.CW1/5, copy of application dated 11.04.2012 Ex.CW1/6, copies of replies dated 10.05.2012 and 15.05.2012 Ex.CW1/7 (colly.) and copy of cheque dated 07.05.2012 Ex.CW1/8.
8. OP filed evidence by way of Sunil Kumar Jha, Manager Accounts and reiterated contents of WS. OP relied on  copy of booking form, commitment checklist alongwith payment receipt Ex.CWOP1/A, copy of sales invoice Ex.OP1/B and copy of insurance policy Ex.OP1/C.
9. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as by OP.
10. We have heard complainant in person and Sh. Gaurav Gupta for Sh. Akshay Kaushik counsel for OP and perused the record.
11. Complainant has placed on record the copy of performa invoice dated 04.05.2010 in which it is clearly stated that complainant has booked EECO 7 STR for a sum of Rs. 3,18,151/-. As per the assurance OP failed to deliver the vehicle in time which leads to the increase in the cost of the vehicle and as such complainant as compelled to pay an additional sum of Rs. 5,849/- to OP. The complainant has placed on record the copy of various complaints filed before various authorities such as police, as well as the RTI application to get the refund of Rs. 4,151/- arbitrarily kept by the OP even after receiving Rs. 5,849/- enhanced amount on behalf of cost of vehicle in question and finally after continuous effort on 07.05.2012 complainant received his hard earn money of Rs. 4,151/- refunded by OP. The entire facts narrated by the complainant as well as the documents annexed with the complaint clearly establish the case of deficiency in service against OP.
12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that OP is guilty of deficiency in service and as such is liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of pain and mental agony suffered by him due to the delay in delivery of the vehicle as well as unnecessary increase in the cost of the vehicle as well as for harassment suffered for getting his own money refunded from OP.
13. The OP is directed to comply the order within 30 days of the receipt of the order failing which OP will be liable to pay the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 9% P.A from the date of receipt of order till realization.

File be consigned to record room.

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  20.02.2024.

       SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA               RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                             MEMBER