Orissa

Debagarh

CC/41/2020

Kumudabandhu Pradhan, aged about 39 years, S/O- Late Upendra Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Balaram Motors, (SS STEELLOY PVT. LTD.), - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jun 2021

ORDER

                                       BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                        COMMISSION, DEOGARH.

C. Case No-  41 /2020

Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Arati Das, Member .

Kumudabandhu Pradhan,aged about 39 years,

S/O- Late Upendra Pradhan,

R/O-Ward No-4, Babusahi,

P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh,Pin-768108.                                 ………..Complainant

Vrs.

The Proprietor,

Balaram Motros,

(SS STEELLOY PVT. LTD.),

Near Panposh Bridge,

Dhandiapali,Rourkela,769041(Odisha)                                       ……..Opp. Party

 

            Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-                     Self.
2. For the O.P                      :-                     None.

 

DATE OF HEARING : 28.05.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 18.06.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that,the Complainant on dtd. 08.12.2019, intended to purchase a HARRIER XZ(DT)  a four wheeler vehicle of TATA make  and made contact with the O.P. and availed a quotation for the said vehicle  quoting Rs. 17,20,750/- as ex-showroom price, Rs.99,357/- as Insurance fees, 1,77,575/- as registration fees, Rs.7,500/- handling charges, Rs.17,208 for T.C.S in total of Rs. 20,22,390/-. The Complainant opted to exchange his  Old Car with the O.P who valued the old Car at Rs. 4,50,000/- and adjusted the amount with the new Harrier vehicle, for which the deal was finalized at Rs.20,00,000/- for the brand new Harrier. He paid Rs.10,000/- in cash to the O.P as advance payment who issued a booking certificate in the name of the Complainant on the same day i.e on dtd. 08.12.2019 with a condition that the Booking amount will be refundable in the event cancellation of booking. The O.P had assured to deliver the said Harrier within 30 days from the day of booking but the Complainant had waited for 4-5 months for seeking any response from the O.P and 6-7 times he has visited to the showroom of the O.P. On making contact with the O.P on dtd.12.05.2020, over his mobile phone, the O.P replied that due to some unavoidable problems he could not delivered the same and assured him to deliver the same as soon as possible. But at the end of May-2020, the Complainant requested to the O.P to at least return the booking amount but he (O.P) ignored him. Further in the mean time the Complainant has already purchased another Vehicle from other dealer at Bhubaneswar. The Complainant has been cheated and harassed by the O.P and the booking amount of Rs.10,000/- is lying unproductive with the O.P since the day of booking and the Complainant sustained financial loss, mental pain and agony due to deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice caused by the O.P for which the constrained to seek relief in this Commission.

The O.P despite of service of notice he did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration the above fact, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

 

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has executed an agreement to purchase  a HARRIER XZ(DT) a four wheeler vehicle of TATA make and paid advance of Rs.10,000/- as advance to the O.P.  It is admitted that the complainant had booked the above said Car by depositing Rs.10,000/- with the OP  regarding which the receipt  was issued to him on dtd. 08.12.202019. According to the complainant he was assured that the HARRIER CAR would be delivered to him within 30 days from the date of booking of the vehicle as per oral agreement. We are therefore, of the opinion that at the time of booking, an assurance was given to the complainant that the vehicle would be delivered within 30 days from the date of delivery but it was not delivered as promised. But surprisingly the O.P did not return the advance /booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant nor delivering the Car. We are therefore, of the opinion that the O.P who had been withholding the amount of Rs.10,000/-had an ulterior motive of keeping the said amount because it was expected to earn interest thereon and it delayed the payment of the same to the complainant for mala fide reasons. On the other hand by withholding the said amount the OP was causing a financial loss to the complainant, because he would have earned interest thereon or would have invested the said amount in some profit generation. It was therefore, mala fide intention on the part of OP that it did not deliver the HARRIER CAR to the Complainant.  It is not only deficiency in service but an unfair trade practice on the part of OP whereby it not only delayed delivery of the vehicle but also delayed the payment of the deposited amount and when the same was demanded, the O.P has issued cheques which were ultimately dishonored. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Ravinder Raj vs M/S. Competent Motors Co. Pvt. ... on 10 February, 2011” decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Hence we order as under:-

 

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P is directed to return the amount of Rs.10,000/- which was paid at the time of booking of the HARRIER CAR with 9% interest  per annum from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., dtd. 24.09.2020 till its realisation." The O.P is further directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh)as compensation and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 18^th day of June-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                                                                             

 

MEMBER.                                                                                          PRESIDENT.

                                                     Dictated and Corrected

                                                                   By me.

           

 

                                                                 PRESIDENT.