DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.192 of 27-04-2010 Decided on 29-10-2010 Lovleen Garg aged about 37 years son of Sh.Om Parkash Garg, r/o H.No.12, North Estate, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus Tara Automobiles (Authorized Maruti Sazuki dealer), Opp. ITI, Mansa Road, Bathinda. Marutia Sazuki India Ltd., through its Chairman cum M.D. Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Navneet Garg, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Amanpal Singh, counsel for opposite party No.1. Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the complainant has filed the present complaint with allegations against the opposite parties that he approached to the opposite party No.1 who is the authorized dealer of opposite party No.2 for purchase one Maruti Swift VDI car. The opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that if he would book the car today, they would provide him the car within one week. The complainant booked the car with opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.50,000/- through cheque No.018738 dated 22.01.2010 as earnest money/booking amount and received a receipt in this regard. The opposite party No.1 did not deliver the car within stipulated period. The complainant has filed a complaint with the opposite party No.2 on 19/20.02.2010 vide complaint No.9081393. The opposite party No.1 has issued a letter dated 24.02.2010 whereby they have mentioned that they would deliver the car by 7th April but till today, they have not deliver the car to the complainant. He further alleged that the opposite party No.1 has delivered the cars to other persons by ignoring the seniority of the complainant. The complainant had purchased the car from Sarshney Motors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi who is the authorized dealer of the opposite party No.2. The complainant had earlier filed a complaint against the opposite parties but the same was withdrawn on 01.04.2010 with permission to file the fresh one. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint with prayer to refund Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. and Rs.1 lac as compensation alongwith Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation expenses. 2. The opposite parties have filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No.1 pleaded in its statement that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for purchase of Maruti Swift VDI car. The opposite party No.1 provided the requisite details of the said car to the complainant as per his choice and the complainant booked the car on 22.01.2010 by depositing Rs.50,000/-. The opposite party No.1 denied that he assured the complainant to provide the car within a week rather the customers are being requested to wait for about 2-3 months for the delivery of the car. The complainant has concocted a false story that he was assured to provide the car within a week. The complainant also made a complaint on 19/20.02.2010 on Toll free number, the opposite party No.1 sent a letter dated 24.02.2010 to the complainant requesting him that the car will be provided to him upto 07.04.2010. The opposite party No.1 telephonically informed the complainant about the availability of the car as per his booking but the complainant himself failed to turn up and to take delivery of the car. The opposite party No.1 further pleaded that they are ready to give the delivery of the car but no booking amount can be refunded till he got it cancelled. The opposite party No.2 pleaded in its separate written statement that the complainant is not a Consumer of the opposite party No.2 as defined u/s 2(1)(d) of the 'Act'. The complainant neither entered into any contract for sale of car nor hired any service for consideration with the opposite party No.2. It is submitted that the opposite party No.2 sells vehicles being manufactured by it to its dealers under the dealership agreement against 'C' Form as is required under “The Central Sales Tax Act”. The dealers of the opposite party No.2 sell the vehicles to their customers against their own contract for sale & by their own invoice & sale certificate as defined under Motor Vehicle Act. The opposite party No.2 further submitted that the relationship between the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.1 is that of Principal-to-Principal basis only as per the Dealership Agreement executed between the opposite parties. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant booked Maruti Swift VDI car with opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.50,000/- through cheque No.018738 dated 22.01.2010 as earnest money/booking amount Ex.C-2 but the opposite party No.1 did not deliver the car within stipulated period to the complainant. He lodged a complaint with opposite party No.2 on 19/20.02.2010 vide complaint No.9081393 on a Toll free number. He received a letter that the expected date of delivery of the car was by 7th April, 2010 Ex.C-3 but till today, the car was not delivered to the complainant. 6. The opposite party No.1 in its written statement pleaded that he has requested to the complainant to wait for 2-3 months for delivery of the car and they have never promised to give the delivery of the car within a week. The opposite party No.1 informed the complainant telephonically that the car was available with them but the complainant has failed to take delivery of the car himself. The opposite party No.2 pleaded that the complainant is not consumer of the opposite party No.2 as defined u/s 2(1)(d) of the 'Act' as no contract has been done between the opposite party No.2 and the complainant, he is only the manufacturing company and supplies the vehicle to his dealers and the relationship between opposite party Nos.1&2 is that of Principal-to-Principal basis only as per the Dealership Agreement between the opposite parties. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the opposite party No.1 has delivered the cars to other persons by ignoring the seniority of the complainant. He had purchased the car from Sarshney Motors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi who is the authorized dealer of opposite party No.2. The complainant further submitted that due to professional as well as his family reasons, the complainant had to go various places from where he has to hire taxi and had spent a lot of money on taxi. The complainant had also earlier filed a complaint against the opposite parties but the same was withdrawn on 01.04.2010 with permission to file the fresh one. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has submitted that they are ready to make the delivery of the car to the complainant and no amount can be refunded to the complainant till the booking is got cancelled by the complainant. He further submitted that the dispute if any comes under the definition of Goods Act and not on rendering of services. He further submitted that only booking of car can not be make the person a consumer under the 'Act'. The opposite party No.1 has never allured the complainant, he had booked the car with his own choice after depositing Rs.50,000/-. The opposite party No.1 has never promised to give delivery of the car within one week rather they requested the complainant to wait for 2-3 months for delivery of the car. The opposite parties requested the complainant on 07.04.2010 Ex.C-3 to take the delivery of the car but the complainant has failed to approach the opposite party No.1 and also failed to take the delivery of the car. The complainant has not intimated the opposite party No.1 that he had purchased a car from Delhi and had not applied for cancellation of booking of the car. He had purchased the car before 07.04.2010 and even before filing of this complaint. Vide Ex.C-3 i.e. Apology Letter which was sent by the opposite parties to the complainant dated 24.02.2010, in which, they have regretted the inconvenience caused to the complainant due to non delivery of vehicle and has mentioned the expected date of delivery as 7th April. The complainant should have applied for cancellation of the booking of the car but in the present case, the complainant has not applied for cancellation. Moreover, the complainant had purchased the vehicle from Delhi and he cannot afford to buy another vehicle which he had booked with the opposite party No.1. Without intimation, the complainant wanted to get his booking cancelled, it was difficult for opposite parties to pay the booking amount. In such circumstances, the complainant will apply for cancellation of the booking within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 6% P.A. from 7th April, 2010 onwards till its realization within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Hence, this complaint is accepted in terms thereof and this complaint is dismissed qua opposite party No.2 as the complainant has not entered in any contract/agreement with opposite party No.2. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 29.10.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member | 
