DATE OF FILING: 21.09.2016
DATE OF DISPOSAL:17.08.2017
O R D E R
Dr.Alaka Mishra, Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the Opposite Party ( in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he had booked for a four wheeler namely “CITARA BREEZA” in the show room of the O.P. and for that the complainant had paid an advance token amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand) only towards part payment through a cheque of Corporation Bank bearing cheque No.370805 dated 24.02.2016 and the O.P. has also issued a receipt in favour of the complainant to that effect bearing receipt No. 5613 dated 24.02.2016 with an assurance to give delivery of the said vehicle to the complainant within one month. When the assured time period lapsed, the complainant run after the O.P. to know about the delivery of the vehicle since he was in urgent need of a vehicle of his own to use the same for his business promotion but the O.P. avoided giving delivery of the booked vehicle on different pretext. Being harassed the complainant sent an Advocate’s notice through his Advocate by Regd. Post with AD on 03.05.2016 addressing to the authorized signatory of the O.P. appraising him with regard to the violation of contract and to give delivery immediate delivery of his vehicle within 15 days from the date of the receipt of that notice but though the O.P. received the said notice but neither give any reply nor delivered the vehicle which clearly reveals the ill intention of the O.P. who deliberately made the deficiency in service by paying a deaf ear to the grievance of the complainant which comes under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. When all the best attempts of the complainant ended in vain, finding no other alternative, he is compelled to take the shelter of this Hon’ble Forum with a clean hand for early redressal of his grievances. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to give delivery of the said vehicle or to refund the advance amount of Rs.21,000/- with the interest to the complainant and award compensation along with the litigation expenses in the best interest of justice.
3. Notice was issued against the O.P. and the same was received by the authorized person on 14.10.2016. He neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version hence the O.P. was declared set ex parte on 14.02.2017. Besides, the O.P. was allowed sufficient opportunities to proceed with his case but he failed to do so hence was proceeded ex parte.
4. On the date of final hearing of the consumer dispute, the learned counsel for the complainant is present before this Forum. We have heard arguments from the side of the complainant at length as the O.P. was declared set ex parte on 14.2.2017. We perused materials on the case record, pleadings of the learned counsel for the complainant and relevant documents filed by the complainant. On perusal of documents we find that it is a fact not in dispute that the complainant deposited Rs.21,000/- as advance token amount for the vehicle “VITARA BREEZA” through a cheque of Corporation Bank bearing cheque No.370805 dated 24.02.2016. It is also beyond doubt or dispute that on the same date the O.P. has also issued a money receipt in favour of the complainant with an assurance that the booked vehicle will be delivered to the complainant within one month of receipt of the advance amount. On further perusal of the case record, we find that due to non-delivery of the aforesaid vehicle, the complainant also issued an Advocate’s notice on 30.04.2016 which also did not serve any purpose. The complainant finding no other alternative send a notice again through his Advocate representing the fact and circumstances by registered post with AD on 03.05.2016 addressing to the authorized signatory of the O.P. for release of his vehicle within 15 days from the date of notice. However, the O.P. again did not turn on to the grievances of the complainant and remained silent giving deaf ear to the advocate’s notice. When the O.P. did not give any heed to the Advocate’s notice, the complainant knocked at the door of this Forum and registered a consumer complaint on 21.9.2016 to redress his grievance before this Forum. This Forum issued notice to the O.P. to appear in this Forum to reply and to defend his case. Despite several opportunities given to the O.P. to appear the claim of the complainant and to defend his case but he did not prefer appearing before this Forum and not filed any reply to defend his case as a result the case was proceeded ex parte against the O.P. On merit and it is also a fact that till date the O.P. retains the advance amount of Rs.21,000/- of the complainant and even notice from this Forum did not choose to reply his case. Despite several notices issued and opportunities given, the O.P. neither contested this consumer dispute nor controverted the version of the complainant to deny the claim of the complainant. In the aforesaid peculiar fact and circumstances in absence of any controverted version of the O.P, we are constrained to accept the claim of the complainant against the O.P. Hence, in our considered view, the O.P. is deficient in service, has practiced unfair trade practice and for that the O.P. is liable to compensate the complainant.
5. As far as the claim of the complainant is concerned, in this case, the complainant has prayed before this Forum to direct the O.P. to make delivery of the aforesaid vehicle booked by the complainant or to refund the amount of Rs.21,000/- received by the O.P. towards booking advance for part payment of the booked vehicle. Besides, the complainant has also prayed for interest on the advance amount and to direct the O.P. to pay cost of litigation and compensation for harassment and mental agony. In the instant case, the complainant has admittedly deposited a sum of Rs.21,000/- before the O.P. duly acknowledged by proper money receipt vide receipt No.5613 dated 24.02.2016 as part payment towards the delivery of aforesaid new vehicle and has retained the amount till date. In the interest of justice, in our considered view, the O.P. is liable to return the aforesaid amount to the complainant with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of filing this consumer dispute till the actual payment is made to the complainant. That apart, in the instant case, the O.P. though received the notice from this Forum but he did not care to contest his case ignored the law of the land. In view of the above, the O.P. is careless, negligent and deficient in service and simultaneously promoting unfair trade practice to harass the complainant. As far as compensation is concerned, there is no doubt or dispute that the complainant has been harassed by the O.P. since he did not respond the genuine claim of the complainant and neither delivered the vehicle nor returned the advance money received from the complainant towards part payment for the new vehicle. In this view of the matter, we feel that it will be just and proper to award Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for harassment, mental agony and unfair trade practice in the fact and circumstance of the case. Besides, since the complainant has hired the services of an Advocate to file his consumer case in this Forum due to indifferent attitudes of the O.P., we are interested to direct the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation in the best interest of justice.
6. In the light of above discussion and taking into account to the fact and circumstances of the case, we allowed the case of the complaint against the O.P. who is liable to compensate the complainant due to unauthorizedly detaining of his advance amount and promoting unfair trade practice by harassing a bona fide consumer.
7. Resultantly, we direct the Opposite Party to return the amount of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand) only to the complaint with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. from 21.09.2016 to till the amount is paid to the complainant. The O.P. is also liable to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for harassment, mental agony and for adopting unfair trade practice together with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. The O.P. is directed to comply the above orders within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. If the O.P. fails to comply the order within 45 days from receipt of this order then the penal interest of 2% per annum shall be charged on the whole amount till final payment is made. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
8. The order is pronounced on this day of 17th August 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
