DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 31 of 2011] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 20.01.2011 Date of Decision : 16.11.2012 -------------------------------- Surinder Sharma son of Late Sh. Amar Nath Sharma, House No. 726, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1] Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Nelson Mandela Road, Basant Kunj, New Delhi, through its Managing Director. 2] Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Regional Office, SCO No. 39-40, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. 3] Autopace Network Limited, 112-113, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director. 4] Autopace Network Limited, 112-113, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its General Manager. --- Opposite Parties BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT Mrs.Madhu Mutneja Member SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Counsel for Complainant. None for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.3 & 4. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the Complainant booked one Maruti Swift Car Vxi (Silver Colour) with the Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 on 3.9.2010 by depositing Rs.50,000/- as booking amount, vide Receipt No. 13593 dated 3.9.2010 (Annexure C-1). The Complainant mentioned to the Opposite Parties that he would prefer to take the delivery of the vehicle on 4.11.2010 on the auspicious occasion of ‘Dhan Tharesh’. The Opposite Party No. 4 assured the Complainant that the car would be delivered on the preferred date i.e. 4.11.2010. The Complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 on 8.10.2010 for invoice, as he wanted to apply for a loan with a Bank. The dealer issued the invoice dated 8.10.2010 and again assured that the car would definitely be delivered on 4.11.2010 (Annex.C-2). The Complainant applied for loan from State Bank of Patiala and kept on inquiring every now and then, regarding the delivery of the car from the dealer and each time, the same assurance was given to him. The Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.2.00 lacs on 1.11.2010 and the Complainant had deposited the marginal amount of Rs.1,54,616/- in the car loan account. The Bank on 1.11.2010 issued a Cheque of Rs.3,54,616/- in favour of Opposite Party No.3 and the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.3. On 2.11.2010 the Sales Marketing Team of Munish Sharma and Naval Arora were contacted but they disclosed that the car desired by the Complainant is not available and he should contact the General Manager Mr. Vishal Jindal in this matter. After making him to wait for nearly 1½ hour, Mr. Jindal declared that the car of the Complainant has not come from the company and further told the Complainant that he should confirm on telephone about its delivery. A copy of the cheque dated 2.11.2010 is attached as Annexure C-3. On 2.11.2010, the Complainant repeatedly tried to contact Mr. Jindal on his mobile, as well as on Dealer’s Phone No., but the said Mr. Jindal could not be contacted. Finally, after a long wait, at 2.00 PM, the Complainant met Mr. Jindal, who told him that his request was sent to the company for delivery of car on the preferred date i.e. 4.11.2011, confirmation of which would come in the evening. However, at about 4:19:06 PM, the Complainant received SMS from Mr. Jindal to the effect that the delivery of vehicle would take another few days. The Complainant on the same evening sent e-mail to Opposite Party No.1, as well as approached the rest of the Opposite Parties, but when nothing positive could came out, he served a legal notice dated 08.11.2010 (Annexure C-4), calling upon the Opposite Parties to pay compensation for harassment, interest on deposited money of Rs.50,000/- and on marginal money of Rs.1,54,616/- also, but to no avail. The Complainant claims that on 29.11.2010 representatives of Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 contacted him and informed that the car has been received from the company and he can take the delivery of the car, upon which the Complainant told that representatives that he would take the delivery on 02.12.2010 and also requested them regarding compensation and interest. The representatives of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 assured the Complainant that the amount of compensation and interest would be settled at the time of delivery. On 02.12.2010, the Complainant went to Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 for delivery of car, but nothing was done. The Complainant then met the General Manager for settlement of compensation and interest, who finally, refused to pay any amount on 06.01.2011. The Complainant alleged that at the time of delivery of the vehicle in the evening, the Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 did not hand over Form No. 22 and 21 to him and rather, supplied the same to him after one week. The Complainant further claims that since the loan was sanctioned on 01.11.2010; cheque was handed over to the Complainant by the Bank on 02.11.2010; the bank withdrew the 1st installment of Rs.4413/- from his account on 02.12.2010, thus he is also entitled for refund of 1st installment from the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has thus preferred the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, seeking the following relief:- a] To pay interest @9% on the deposited money of Rs.50,000/- w.e.f. 3.9.2010 to 2.12.2010; b] To pay interest @9% on deposited marginal money of Rs.1,54,616/- w.e.f. 1.11.2010 to 02.12.2010. c] To pay Rs.4413/- as 1st installment of loan which was withdrawn from the account of the Complainant on 2.12.2010. d] To pay the cost of present litigation to the sum of Rs.5000/-. e] To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for financial loss and for mental, physical harassment and on account of providing deficient services. The complaint of the complainants is duly verified and is supported by his detailed affidavit. 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking their version of the case. 3. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their joint reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the Complainant has failed to set out specific allegations against the answering Opposite Parties in the present complaint and has no case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The answering Opposite Parties have no involvement in the transaction of sale of vehicle to the individual customer and the relationship between the answering Opposite Parties and the dealer (Opposite Party No.3) is that of Principal-to-Principal basis. Further, the Complainant did not have any transaction of sale/ purchase with the answering Opposite Parties; hence there is no contractual relationship between the Complainant and the answering Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 claim that Complainant is not entitled for any compensation as he had failed to place any material on record in order to substantiate his claim for compensation against them. The Complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present complaint and the same deserves dismissal u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, the Opposite Parties have repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the answering Opposite Parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. The reply of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is duly verified and is supported by a detailed affidavit of Sh. R.K. Sharma, Supervisor (Legal), Maruti Suzuki India Limited. 4. The Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their joint reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the answering Opposite Parties denies all the allegations contained in the complaint, except those which are specifically admitted here in this reply and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically traversed. Opposite Parties NO.3 and 4 have objected to the maintainability of the present complaint as the Complainant has approached this Forum by suppressing material facts; even the complaint in its present form does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute as no manufacturing defect is proved nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the allegations made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived; thus, the present complaint deserves rejection. It is also stated that the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 cannot be held liable for any independent act and/or omissions committed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, if any, as their relation with Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is on principal-to-principal basis. Thus, praying for the dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs for being false and frivolous. On merits, the Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. The Opposite Parties have admitted the contents of para 2 to the extent that the Complainant had got booked the said car on 3.9.2010 vide Annexure C-1. However, in reply to para 3 the answering Opposite Parties claim that the Complainant has concocted a false story, as the booking terms were induced in writing and there was no verbal commitment, as is alleged. The answering Opposite Parties are merely authorized dealer of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2; and it is not open to them to purchase a Car from the open market, and then, sell the same to the Complainant; rather, they are dependent upon the supply of vehicles, as per schedule of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. In these circumstances, Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 are not competent to give any time-bound commitment; rather, it was settled that when the vehicle preferred to be purchased by the Complainant, will be received, from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the same will be delivered to him, so time was not made the essence of the contract. In reply to para 4 of the complaint, the requirement of performa-invoice dated 8.10.2010, and the same being supplied by the answering Opposite Parties is admitted. Further, it is claimed that in the same document, “waiting period after confirmation” was mentioned. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure C-2. The answering Opposite Parties again reiterated that they have never confirmed to the Complainant, that the vehicle will be delivered on 4.11.2010. The averments mentioned in para no. 6 to 10 are denied. In reply to para 11 of the complaint, it is stated that the answering Opposite Parties were prompt in their reply to the legal notice; however, the Complainant’s choice of Silky Silver color of a particular model is confirmed. But due to limited production, the preferred vehicle was not readily available. Even the approximate delivery period given on the order booking form is only indicative and the delivery of the vehicle could only be given as soon as the same is available and the Complainant in case of delay in the delivery could cancel the booking and receive the amount of refund. In reply to para 12, it is stated that the vehicle was promptly delivered to the Complainant on its delivery and the Complainant was duly intimated about its arrival. Even the terms & conditions of booking in Clause 2 claims that the Opposite Parties were not responsible for delivery of the vehicle, in case of delay or finance. The same is annexed as Annexure R-1, which is duly signed by the Complainant. The claim of the Complainant is beyond the booking terms, thus, need not be honoured. While denying the averments of the complaint in a Para-wise manner, the fact of the delivery of the vehicle on 2.12.2010 as well as handing over of Form NO. 22 and 21 promptly is admitted. The answering Opposite Parties have heavily relied upon the authoritative judgments wherein the allegations of cheating do not deserve to be adjudicated upon by the Forum. Thus, finally, praying for the dismissal of complaint with heavy costs. The reply of the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 is duly verified and is supported by a detailed affidavit of Sh. Vishal Jindal, General Manager, Autopace Networks Pvt. Ltd. 5. As the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 failed to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 12/10/2012, the arguments of the counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 were heard. Hence, in the absence of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, we have proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), vide order dated 12/10/2012. 6. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the Parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 7. The present complaint preferred by the Complainant is basically for the reasons that he had booked one Maruti Swift Car VXI Model of Silky Silver Color on 3.9.2010 and forwarded Rs.50,000/- as booking amount, as demanded by the Opposite Parties. This amount is duly received by Opposite Party No.4 vide its Receipt No. 13593 dated 3.9.2010. The Complainant in Para 3 of his complaint has claimed that he preferred to take the delivery of the booked vehicle on 4.11.2010 on the auspicious day of Dhan Teras and the Opposite Party No.4 assured and promised to deliver the car on that day. The Complainant in order to arrange for a loan approached the Opposite Party No.4 on 8.10.2010 and took performa-invoice dated 8.10.2010; the same being necessary for sanctioning of the loan by the Bank. The Complainant deposited the Cheque amounting to Rs.3,54,616/- received from the Bank on 2.11.2010 and approached the Sales Marketing Incharge Mr. Munish Sharma to inquire about the delivery of the vehicle on his preferred date of 04.11.2010. The Complainant was asked to contact one Mr. Vishal Jindal, the General Manager of Opposite Party No.4, who informed the Complainant that the vehicle booked by him has not come from the Company; and further, directed him to inquire about its status over the Phone on 2.11.2010. Thereafter, the Complainant kept on inquiring about the status of delivery of his vehicle, but on that day, at around 4.00 P.M. he was told that the delivery of his vehicle would take another few days and they regret the delay. The Complainant in the evening of 2.11.2010 sent a complaint to Maruti Udyog Limited, through an e-mail and also, Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the Regional Office of Opposite Party No.1, but no action was taken at all. The Complainant on 8.11.2010 served a legal notice claiming compensation for harassment, interest on deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- and also, interest on the marginal money of Rs.1,54,616/- deposited with the Bank, but no reply was heard from the side of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant was informed on 29.11.2010 by the representatives of Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 that he can take the delivery of his vehicle on 2.12.2010. But Opposite Party No.3 and 4 did not pay any heed to his request of compensation. 8. The main allegation of the Complainant is with regard to the non-delivery of the car in time as promised by the Opposite Party No.3 and 4 when the Complainant had booked the vehicle by paying a booking amount of Rs.50,000/- much in advance of the tentative date of its delivery as per his wish. The Complainant in order to substantiate his bonafides of timely delivery of the vehicle also pressed an application dated October 21, 2010, through which Opposite Parties NO. 3 & 4, were directed to produce the record of booking and delivery of Maruti Swift Vxi Silver color car for the period 3.9.2010 to 2.12.2010. The Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 tendered the detailed dispatch report in compliance of the directions of this Forum, passed while allowing the said application. On perusal of the detailed dispatch report, it is revealed that Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 had actually not adhered to the basic principal of priority as per the booking list, while delivering the different vehicles to its customers, who had booked the same with them. 9. The details of the category of Silky Silver colored vehicle booked with the Opposite Parties clearly shows that the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 delivered two vehicle of Silky Silver colour on 16.08.2010 to Bayer Cropscience Ltd.; whereas, the said company had actually booked Pearl Metallic Arctic White color of vehicle on 30.6.2010. It is very much apparent that had Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 not made a preferential delivery to Bayer Cropscience Ltd., the desire of the Complainant of getting his vehicle on 4.11.2010 could have easily been met. The Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 though in their reply to Para No. 3 of the complaint have categorically stated that they have been delivering the vehicle preferred by the Purchasers as received from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (the manufacturer). Thus, the reply of the Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 tendered along with an affidavit is actually contrary to their own records. This fact totally goes against them and the allegations of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 failed to deliver his vehicle on time, even though the same was with them, are proved right. 10. Though it is of not much significance to the present complaint, but it is also established that the delivery of the vehicles of Pearl Metallic Arctic Color booked by different customers too were not delivered as per the priority of its booking and the priority is found tempered for the reason best known to them. It is found that Mr. Inderjit Raheja had booked the vehicle on 22.3.2010 and Mr. Vivek Pathak had booked the vehicle on 30.3.2010; whereas, the deliveries made to each of them shows that Mr. Vivek Pathak was given a preference and delivered the vehicle on 28.4.2010; whereas Mr. Inderjit Raheja got his vehicle on 3.5.2010. Similar is the case with other customers namely Mr. Gian Singh, Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Mr. Ravinder Singh Angurala, Maj. Deepti and Mr. Munish Khanna. Hence, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4 have actually acted in a partisan manner, while making delivery of the vehicles received from Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 for the reasons best known to themselves alone. This is nothing but an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. 11. The present complaint is dismissed qua Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 as we do not find any ground to deficiency in service qua them. 12. In the light of above observations, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 are jointly and severally directed, to:- [a] To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; [b] To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation; 13. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties NO.3 & 4; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of para 12 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. 14. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 16th November, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
