BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Vinod Kumar Gupta s/o Sh.Uma chand, R/o Plot No.C-48, Industrial Area, Phase-III, Mohali

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Tata Motors, Passenger Car Business Unit, 5^th Floor, One Fobes, Dr.V.V.Gandhi Marg, Mumbai 400023

2]  Tata Motors Finance Limited, 2^nd Floor, C-33, Ram Krishan Matle work, Road, No.28, Wagle Ind. Estate, Thana, Maharashtra.

3]  Hind Motors India Limited (Passenger Car Dealer), Plot No.15, Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   P.L. AHUJA                    PRESIDENT

RAJINDER  SINGH  GILL            MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Bhupinder Ghai, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Counsel for the OPs.

None for OP-3.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the complainant booked a Tata Nano Car, costing Rs.1,40,000/-, with OP No.3 on 21.4.2009 and submitted a loan application form, which was granted vide Ann.C-1.  It is averred that as per Ann.C-1, the said loan amount was to be disbursed directly to Tata Motor Ltd., solely for the purpose of booking Tata Nano Car and an amount of Rs.4314/- was charged towards up-front interest and processing fee.  Afterwords, OP-2 informed the complainant vide letter Ann.C-2, dated 23.6.2009 regarding allotment of a Nano Car as well as its delivery between January-March, 2011.  Subsequently, the complainant received another letter dated 8.7.2009 Ann.C-3 vide which he was offered to renew/extend the booking loan period till the indicated date/month of delivery of vehicle; or to repay the booking loan and collect the account closer and no objection letter; or to convert the booking loan into an auto loan.  Accordingly, the complainant repaid the booking loan and received account closer letter (Ann.C-4) as well as receipt of Rs.1,40,000/-    (Ann.C-5).  Thereafter, the complainant started receiving interest on the booking amount paid by him from Tata Nano. The copies of the letters dated 10.2.2010 and 19.4.2010 vide which the interest was sent to the complainant by the OPs are Annexure C-6 & C-7. Later on, the complainant being no more interested in the purchase of Tata Nano Car, requested OP-3 for cancellation of booking and refund of the amount, whereupon he was given cancellation number as well as informed that an amount of Rs.1,37,000/- will be refunded within a period of 30 days (Ann.C-8). Thereafter, the complainant received last installment of interest vide letter dated 29.9.2010 along with cheque of Rs.4,956/- (Ann.C-9 & C-10). 

         It is pleaded that the complainant after 29.9.2010 neither received any refund nor interest from the OPs inspite of several requests made on their helpline number as well as visiting OP-3 personally.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said acts of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]       OPs No.1 & 2 filed reply and admitted that the complainant had booked a Nano Car and deposited an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-.  It is submitted that OP-3 was earlier the authorized representative of answering OPs, but from 20.12.2011 onwards, it is not an authorized representative of answering OPs.  Ann.C-1 is not pertaining to answering OPs, rather to the Tata Capital Limited, which has not been made a party to the present complaint.  The answering OPs are not a party to the alleged contract between the complainant and financial institution and have not received the said amount of Rs.4314/- as alleged to be paid to M/s Tata Capital Limited. It is also submitted that Annexure C-4 & C-5 pertains to M/s Tata Capital Limited for which the complainant has not sent any intimation earlier to OPs NO.1 & 2. The payment of interest to the complainant, as alleged, is admitted.  It is pleaded that the answering OPs had already transferred/credited the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to OP No.3 on 21.7.2010.  Thus, the amount, if any, was to be refunded by OP-3 and particulars thereof are given in Ann.R-1/1 & R-1/2.  It is also pleaded that the vehicle was ready for the delivery and the amount was transferred to OP-3, so no interest for future was payable to the complainant.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         OP No.3 also filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case about the booking of the car in question, deposit of Rs.1,40,000/- as booking amount as well as payment of interest to the complainant by OPs NO.1 & 2.  It is stated that OP-3 is not a party to the alleged contract (Ann.C-1) between the complainant and Tata Capital Limited. It is also stated that the complainant has not paid any of the consideration amounts to OP-3 and the OP-3 has not having any authority to cancel the booking amount.  It is submitted that Ann.C-8 is not issued by OP-3 and is a fabricated document created by the complainant.  It is further stated that as per booking terms of the Nano Car, the complainant was under obligation to approach OPs NO.1 & 2.  The OP-3 has neither booked the vehicle nor was has any authority to cancel the booking and issue the cancellation number etc. It is asserted that OP-3 is no more authorized dealer of OPs NO.1 & 2 from 20.12.2011 onwards, hence the complaint being filed thereafter, is not maintainable qua it. Denying rest of the allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.      

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, ld.Counsel for OPs NO.1 & 2 and have perused the record as well as written arguments of OP No.3.

5]       Admittedly, the complainant booked a Nano Car with OPs and deposited a total sum of Rs.1,40,000/-.  The payment of interest on the said booking amount, so made by the OPs, is also admitted. It is also not denied that the complainant sought cancellation of booking and refund of amount.

6]       Therefore, the dispute between the parties is with regard to refund of the booking amount. 

7]       The contention of the complainant is that inspite of his cancellation of said booking of Nano Car, the OPs failed to refund the amount till date.

8]       On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the OPs NO.1 & 2 pleaded that they had already transferred/credited the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to OP No.3 on 21.7.2010, particulars of which are given in Ann.R-1/1 & R-1/2, for further payment to the complainant, hence they are not liable for payment of interest or refund.

9]       Whereas, OP No.3 has pleaded that as per the booking terms & conditions, the complainant was to approach OPs nO.1 & 2.  It is also pleaded that OP-3 is no more authorized dealer of OPs NO.1 & 2 from 20.12.2011 onwards.  It is further pleaded that OP-3 has neither booked the vehicle in question nor was having any authority to cancel the booking and make refund.

10]      After going through the facts & circumstance of the case and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that though OP No.3 is no more the representative/authorized dealer of OPs NO.1 & 2 w.e.f. 20.12.2011, but at the time of booking, it was admitted that the authorized dealer of OPs NO.1 & 2 for booking as well as delivery of the said vehicle. Therefore, whatever developments might have been occurred between the OPs, subsequent to the booking that cannot affect the complainant’s right to get refund of his booking amount, lying with them. The OPs cannot runaway/escape from their liability/ responsibility to refund the amount by throwing the burden on one or the other. It seems to be a cruel joke made by the OPs. Therefore, such averments holds no ground and not tenable in the eyes of law.     

11]      More so, Ann.R-1/1 & R-1/2, placed on record by the OPs NO.1 & 2, which have not been disputed or denied by OP NO.3, clearly prove, beyond any doubt, that they had transferred/credited the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to OP NO.3 on 21.7.2010, pertaining to the complainant - Vinod having UID NO.112202165, which was allotted to him at the time of Booking vide Ann.C-3. However, one thing is proved that refund has not yet been made to the complainant.  Therefore, OPs have not performed their lawful duty towards the complainant/consumer.

12]      Resultantly, in view of the foregoing and entirety of the case, we are of the firm opinion that the OPs have not only remained grossly deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant but also indulged into unfair trade practice, by not refunding the booking amount to the complainant since long.  It is also proved that due to said deficient & negligent act the complainant had to suffer mental tension, harassment and financial loss. Therefore, the complaint having lot of merit, weight and substance, is hereby allowed. The OPs are jointly & severally directed to refund the booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainant. They are also directed to jointly & severally pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental & physical harassment as well as financial loss to the complainant on account of their deficient acts.  Apart from this, the OPs shall also pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

         This order be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rs.1,40,000/- plus Rs.50,000/-) along interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 11.6.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

         Certified copies of the order free of cost be supplied to the parties. The file be consigned.