DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
C.C. No. 522 of 29-11-2013
Decided on 16-04-2014
Bhushan Kumar Singla aged about 52 years S/o Sita Ram R/o House No.16717/2, Street No.6, Basant Bihar, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
The Renault India (P) Limited, Head Office # 37-38, ASV Romana Tower, 4th Floor, Venkantanrayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600017, through its General Manager.
The Regional Manager, The Renault India (P) Limited, Suitte No.11, Vatika Business Centre, 2nd Floor, Vatika Triangle, Sushant Lok-1, Phase-1, Block-A, M.G Road, Gurgaon-122002.
M/s Padam Cars (P) Ltd., 8th Mile Stone, Goniana Road, Bathinda, through its Manager/Proprietor/Partner.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member.
For the Complainant : Sh.M.L Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties : Sh.Krishan Chand, counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 &
2.
Sh.Sandeep Baghla, counsel for opposite party No.3.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he booked a Pulse RXZ (O) car on 10.11.2012 with the opposite parties and deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- vide receipt No.344 dated 10.11.2012 as booking amount with opposite party Nos.1 and 2, through the opposite party No.3. At the time of booking of the said car, the opposite parties assured him that its delivery would be given to him at the earliest possible i.e. in the month of November, 2012. Thereafter the complainant also deposited an amount of Rs.45,000/- vide receipt No.451 dated 22.11.2012 through opposite party No.3. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties promised the complainant to deliver him the said car in the month of November, 2012, but they failed to do so. The complainant visited the opposite parties several times and requested them to deliver the booked car, but they have been making false excuses and lingering on the matter on one or the other pretext. The complainant further alleged that as the opposite parties have failed to keep their promise, he got apprehension in his mind that after the sale of said vehicle, no proper service would be provided to him. Thus, the complainant opted to get cancelled the said booking and get back the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him. The complainant also got issued legal notice dated 24-7-2013 calling the opposite parties to refund the aforesaid amount with interest, but they did not respond to the notice rather refused to accede to the requests of the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 50,000/- deposited by him alongwith compensation and cost.
The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has not booked Pulse RXZ (O) with opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and neither they personally deals with the customers directly. The complainant may have booked it with opposite party No. 2 for which opposite party No. 2 can only give the suitable reply. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 had no direct dealing with the complainant and neither has ever promised to deliver the car in the month of November, 2012. The complainant in a generalized terms have mentioned that the opposite parties have promised to deliver the car and is trying to rope in opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have further pleaded that the complainant is making generalized allegations that opposite parties have promised to deliver the car and he has visited them several times. Firstly opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are placed at Chennai and Gurgaon respectively and the complainant never came in touch with them and never visited them. The legal notice sent by the complainant was duly taken care of and the concern was raised by opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 with the dealer to resolve the same at the earliest.
The opposite party No. 3 filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant had approached it for booking of Pulse Car on 10-11-2012 and had paid the booking amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The car was ready for delivery on 19-11-2012 and the opposite party No. 3 duly informed the complainant about the same. The complainant visited the show room of opposite party No. 3 on 19-11-2012 and after inspecting the car, he affirmed to purchase the same and handed over Cheque No. 957008 dated 19-11-2012 for Rs. 7,09,359/- to be drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda. The opposite party No. 3 bonafidely issued the temporary registration certificate as well as the insurance cover note of the car in question as per the request of the complainant and even the challan was prepared for the delivery of the said car. The opposite party No. 3 has further pleaded that the complainant conveyed to the opposite party No. 3 that there were insufficient funds in his said account and he asked the opposite party No. 3 to hold the delivery of the car and accordingly, the complainant had left without taking delivery of the car in question. On 22-11-2012, the complainant had visited the opposite party No. 3 and paid a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards the margin money in order to get the car financed from the Finance Company and taken the original cover note of insurance in order to get the car financed from the financial institution/bank. The complainant had assured to take the delivery of car within a day or so as soon as the car would be got financed, but he failed to visit the show room of opposite party No. 3 despite repeated reminders. The opposite party No. 3 has further pleaded that all these facts have been concealed by the complainant. The complainant has further concealed the issuance of letter dated 30-10-2013 vide which a sum of Rs. 32,341/- was refunded to the complainant by opposite party No. 3 vide cheque No. 239912 dated 30-10-2013. However, the complainant had not received the said letter sent through courier and cheque was returned to opposite party No. 3.
The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
The submission of the complainant is that he booked Pulse RXZ (O) car with the opposite parties and deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as booking amount through opposite party No. 3. The complainant also deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000/- through opposite party No. 3. The grudge of the complainant is that the opposite parties have promised to deliver the car in question in the month of November, 2012, but they failed to do so.
On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 is that the car in question was ready for delivery on 19-11-2012 and information in this regard was given to the complainant. The complainant visited the show room of opposite party No. 3 on 19-11-2012 and shown willingness to purchase the same and handed over Cheque No. 957008 dated 19-11-2012 for Rs. 7,09,359/- to be drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda. The opposite party No. 3 bonafidely issued the temporary registration certificate as well as the insurance cover note of the car in question as per the request of the complainant and even the challan was prepared for the delivery of the said car. The submission of the opposite party No. 3 is that the complainant conveyed that there were insufficient funds in his said account and he asked the opposite party No. 3 to hold the delivery of the car and accordingly, he left without taking delivery of the car in question. On 22-11-2012, the complainant visited the opposite party No. 3 and paid a sum of Rs. 45,000/- towards the margin money in order to get the car financed from the Finance Company and taken the original cover note of insurance in order to get the car financed from the financial institution/bank. The complainant had assured to take the delivery of car within a day or so as soon as the car would be got financed, but he failed to visit the show room of opposite party No. 3 despite repeated reminders. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 further submitted that vide letter dated 30-10-2013, cheque No. 239912 dated 30-10-2013 for Rs. 32,341/- was sent to the complainant but he did not receive the same.
The plea of the opposite parties is that the car in question was ready for delivery and challan was also issued, but the complainant assured to take delivery of the car within a day or so after getting the same financed from the financial institution/bank and for getting the car financed, the complainant had taken the original cover note of insurance. A perusal of file reveals that neither on challan Ex. OP-3/6, nor on the insurance cover note OP-3/8, the value of the car in question is written and in the absence of any value/cost of the vehicle in question, the vehicle cannot be got financed. In such circumstance, the version of the opposite party No. 3 cannot be believed that the complainant was not having sufficient funds, due to which he did not take delivery of the car and assured to take the delivery of car in question after getting the same financed. Moreover, the complainant got issued legal notice Ex. C-3 on 24th July, 2013, the reply of which was not given by opposite party No. 3 but the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 in para No. 6 of their written statement have pleaded that they have taken care and the concern was raised by them with the dealer to solve the same at the earliest. Thus this act of opposite party No. 3 shows that till July, 2013, the delivery of the car in question was not offered to the complainant otherwise there was no reason for the opposite party No. 3 for not giving any response to the legal notice of the complainant. Further, admittedly the opposite party No. 3 has sent the refund of the deposited amount to the complainant in November, 2013 i.e. after a year. The opposite party No. 3 has pleaded that on 22-11-2012, the complainant deposited the margin money of Rs. 45,000/- and assured to take delivery of the car in question after a day or so, but he did not visit the showroom of opposite party No. 3, despite repeated reminder. No evidence has been produced by opposite party No. 3 to prove that any communication in this regard was made by opposite party No. 3 with the complainant. Moreover, as discussed above, the opposite party No. 3 sent refund of booking amount to complainant on 1-11-2013 after deducting insurance and temporary registration charges. Firstly it is not understandable that how the opposite party No. 3 issued such documents without taking cost/price of car in question from the complainant and further when the complainant did not turn up to get the delivery of the car as alleged by the opposite party No. 3, why the opposite party No. 3 did not deem it fit and proper to get cancelled the insurance and temporary registration for such a long period of approximately one year . The reason behind this act of opposite party No. 3 is best known to it for which complainant cannot be punished for no fault on his part.
The opposite party No. 1 & 2 are not liable to make any refund as admittedly it has no direct dealing with the complainant.
In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost against opposite party No. 3 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. The opposite party No. 3 is directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the complainant, to him within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
In case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000/- will yield interest @9% P.A from the date of deposit till realization.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs and the file be consigned to the record.
Pronounced in open Forum
16-04-2014
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
(Jarnail Singh )
Member
