Haryana

Panchkula

CC/91/2017

AJAY KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.         

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	91 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	27.4.2017
Date of Decision	:	10.10.2017

                                                                           

Ajay Kumar S/o Late Sh. Bhim Sain, R/o House No.735, Sector-19, Panchkula.

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd, IMT Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana.
2. The Modern Automobiles, Plot No.366, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person. 

                        OP No.1 already ex-parte.

Mr.Amardeep Singh, Adv., for the Op No.2.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

2.             This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Ajay Kumar, complainant against Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Limited and another, the opposite parties.

3.             It is stated in the complaint that the complainant booked the car i.e. IGNIS Delta Petrol Silver on 1.2.2017 vide booking requisition form and cash memo amounting for an amount of Rs. 11,000/- with the OP No.2, which would be delivered to complainant within 8 to 10 weeks of time. After a laps of near about six weeks, the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 10.3.2017, regarding delivery of the car. But the OP No.2 failed to confirm the exact date of delivery of said car. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the OP No.2 many times, but every time OP No.2 failed to confirm the exact date of delivery of the car.  Complainant also called telephonically to OP No.2 regarding status of delivery of the car on 16.4.2017 and 17.4.2017, but no response was given by OP No.2. It had come to the notice of the complainant, that the OP NO.2 had delivered the same color and Model car to another consumer, who booked the car on the date along with the complainant. But even after a lapse of one month from 24.3.2017, Op No.2 has not delivered the car to the complainant till date. On 2.4.2017, the elder brother of complainant residing at Patiala, suddenly suffered severe abdomen pain and was referred by the Railway Hospital, Patiala to PGI, Chandigarh. Due to non-availability of the Car with the complainant, he hired the Taxi from Panchkula to PGI, Chandigarh in emergency conditions and paid an amount of Rs. 600/- as fare. During the treatment from 2.4.2017 to 18.4.2017, complainant had hired the taxi five times. On 20.4.2017 again the taxi was hired by the complainant to get his brother’s endoscopy from the PGI. Therefore, the total fare of 5+1 days works out to Rs. 2300/- as he was admitted in the emergency conditions.  On 21.4.2017, the complainant approached OP No.2 with a written request to provide the car within two days, But OP No.2 refused to receive the same and they did not pay any heed. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops no.1 and 2 to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment, RS. 6,500/- for case filing charges and to pay booking amount of Rs. 11,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of booking of the vehicle to the date of refund.  

4.             Upon notice, OP No. 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has concealed the material fact from this Forum;  OP No.2 has stated that the complainant had booked the vehicle on 1.2.2017 by paying an amount of Rs. 11,000/- as booking amount. It is clearly mentioned that the tentative waiting period would be 8-10 weeks and the 10^th week would finish on 11.4.2017. The vehicle was made available by the manufacturer on 26.4.2017 and the same was communicated by the OP vide registered letter dated 27.4.2017.  A letter was again sent on 4.5.2017 and also a mail was sent on 6.5.2017, which shows that the vehicle was available on 27.4.2017 in the premises of the OP, but the complainant never wish to collect the vehicle for the reason best known to him.    It is pertinent to mention here that the booking allotment numbers are allotted by the manufacturer’s software and accordingly numbers are allotted. Therefore, the OP has nowhere by passed the procedure to give advantage to any other customer.  The complainant has even tried to mislead the court by pleading that the purpose of purchase of the car was to get the TAX benefit and due to the delay in giving the delivery of the vehicle the insurance has gone expenses as well as the complainant has to pay higher rate of interest  as the financial year starts from 1.4.2017, so, therefore the complainant was fully aware that the vehicle would be made available in the month of April, so the question of availing the benefits of TAX does not arises. The complainant has further tried to mislead the court by saying that the complainant had to pay higher rate of interest and processing fee to be tune of 2.5% on the loan amount. He further stated that the complainant was not interested in buying the vehicle and the vehicle is still lying booked by the complainant with the OP and has not been delivered to other person until and unless he concelled the same.  So, the OP cannot take the burden of loss of keeping the vehicle in the premises for long period has to give this vehicle to the another customer as per booking norms.  Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the remaining contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.             Notice was issued to OP No.1 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of OP No.1, it is deemed to be served. Hence, the OP NO.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.6.2017.

6.             The complainant placed on record his own affidavit as Ex.C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Op No.2 has placed on record the affidavit of Chander Sharma, Manager, Modern Automobiles as Annexure R2/A along with Annexure R-2/1, R2/1/A and R2/2 to R-2/6 and has closed the evidence.

7.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

8.                     Admittedly the complainant booked the car i.e. IGNIS Delta Petrol Silver on 1.2.2017 from the OP No.2 (Annexure C-1) and paid Rs. 11,000/- as booking amount vide receipt dated 1.2.2017 (Annexure C-2).  As per terms and condition of booking, the waiting period was 8 to 10 weeks to deliver the said car from the date of booking. The OP No.2 has also confirmed that the waiting period for the vehicle is 8 to 10 weeks applicable form the date of booking (Annexure C-3). The waiting  period of booking was to expire on 11.4.2017. The complainant sent a notice for delivery of the above said car on 21.4.2017. However, on 27.4.2017, the OP No.2 intimated the complainant that his booking against receipt No.985 dated 1.2.2017 has matured and accordingly, the vehicle was offered and the complainant was asked to collect the car in question within four days from the date of above said letter between 9 am to 4 pm. From the above, it is clear that the car in question was not offered/delivered to the complainant within the committed period of delivery i.e. within 8 to 10 weeks w.e.f. 1.2.2017, which was expired on 11.4.2017. Whereas the Ops admitted in their reply that they offered the car in question on 27.4.2017.  This Forum is of the opinion that the OP No.2 is deficient in service to offer the car within a stipulated period.

9.                     The claim of the complainant is that his elder brother, who was residing at Patiala  suddenly suffered with severe abdomen pain and was referred by the Railway Hospital, Patiala to PGI, Chandigarh and due to non-availability of the car with the complainant, he hired the taxi from Panchkula to PGI, Chandigarh on 2.4.2017 and pay Rs.600/- as fare. He also submitted that the treatment of his elder brother continued from 2.4.2017 to 18.4.2017 in the PGI and during  that period he also hired the taxi and paid Rs. 3,600/- as fare. It is not tenable. The complainant requested the OP No.2 for cancellation of the booking on 29.3.2017 (Annexure C-8), who stated that after a period of two months no information regarding delivery of booked car is received till date and changed his decision to purchase the Car and he requested to cancel his booking and refund the amount to him. The above plea raised by the complainant that his elder brother was under the treatment in PGI, Chandigarh from 2.4.2017 to 18.4.2017 and during that period he spent Rs.4,200/- (600+3,600) as taxi fare due to non-availability of the car is not acceptable as the complainant has not placed on file any receipt of payment of the above said amount.

10.                    The car was booked by the complainant with the OP No.2 and the same was to be delivered by the OP No.2. The case of the OP No.2 is not that they have not received the car from the manufacturer within the stipulated time. It was the responsibility of OP No.2 to made the car available from manufacturer within to committed period. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, so the complaint qua OP No.1 is stand dismissed.       Till the filing of the complaint, the OP No.2 has failed to refund the booking amount of Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant in spite of his request dated 29.3.2017, and the OP No.2 is liable to pay and interest of the above said amount from the date of deposit till realization @ 9% per annum. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Op No.2 is directed to;

(a.)           The OP No.2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 1.2.2017 till realization.

(b.)           The Op No.2 is also directed to pay the amount of Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

 Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

10.10.2017          JAGMOHAN SING      ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER                  MEMBER               PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                DHARAM PAL

                                        President