Haryana

StateCommission

A/1123/2015

BADWAR CARS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UDAY SINGH PHOGAT - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN DOGRA

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1123 of 2015

Date of Institution:        28.12.2015

Date of Decision :         15.07.2016

 

M/s Badwar Cars Private Limited near CSD Canteen, Rohtak Road, District Rohtak-124001 through its Manager.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Uday Singh Phogat s/o Sh. Lachman Singh, Resident of House No.129, Sector 14, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 1 DLF, 2^nd Floor, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.

3.      Volkswagen Passenger Cards India, Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited 4^th Floor, B-Wing, Silver Utopia, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099.

4.      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006.

Respondents-Complainants

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Arun Dogra, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Shri Uday Singh Phogat-respondent No.1 in person.                          (Respondents No.2 & 4-dispensed with).

                             None for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been filed by M/s Badwar Cars Private Limited-Opposite Party No.1, against the order dated August 18^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.471 of 2013.

2.      Udai Singh Phogat-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) purchased a Volkswagen Vento Car bearing Engine No.CLN166931, Chassis No.WVWH11607BTO85952, from M/s Badhwar Cars Private Limited-Opposite Party No.1/appellant, on October 10^th, 2011 for Rs.8,33,003/-, vide Invoice Exhibit C-4. Vokkswagen Passenger Cars India-Opposite Party No.3/respondent No.3, is the manufacturer of the car.   It was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘Bajaj Allianz’)-Opposite Parties No.2 & 4. 

3.      On June 6^th, 2012, the car was damaged in an accident.  The Insurance Company was informed and car was taken to the opposite party No.1 for repair. The Insurance Company took 53 days to assess the loss, however, assessed it as total loss. The opposite party No.1 billed for Rs.40,337/- as parking and assessment charges. In view of the fact that the damage of the car was assessed at total loss, so the complainant booked a new car with the opposite party No.1-appellant and paid Rs.50,000/- as booking amount. The complainant not being satisfied with the service, sought refund of the booking amount which the opposite party No.1 refused. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.      Upon notice, the opposite parties contested the complaint. The opposite party No.1 in its reply stated that it had raised invoice of Rs.40,337/- towards parking charges and preparing estimate for repairs. However, in view of the willingness of the complainant that he booked a new car and paid Rs.50,000/- as advance, therefore, out of the invoice amount of Rs.40,337/-, discount of Rs.15,000/- was given and the complainant paid Rs.25,337/-. Later the complainant seeking withdrawal of new booking, the opposite party No.1 withdrew the benefit of discount. In this view, the opposite party No.1 was only liable to pay Rs.35,000/- out of Rs.50,000/-.

5.      The Opposite Parties No.2 and 4-Bajaj Allianz in their reply stated that the complainant had accepted Rs.5,40,000/- in full and final settlement; so cheque bearing No.821062 of Rs.5,40,000/- drawn at Standard Chartered Bank was issued and the same was accepted by the complainant by executing ‘Consent Letter-Cash Loss excluding damaged Vehicle.

6.      The Opposite Party No.3 (the manufacturer of the car) in its reply denied the allegations of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party No.1/appellant, to refund the booking amount, that is, Rs.50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization and Rs.2500/- litigation expenses.

8.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant has come up in appeal.

9.      It is not disputed that the complainant had booked a new car with the appellant/opposite party No.1 and deposited Rs.50,000/-. The appellant is only raising a plea that discount was extended to the complainant in the charges payable towards parking of accidental car as a gesture of goodwill for booking new car. Since the complainant cancelled the booking and sought refund, therefore, they had right to withdraw the discount. There was no agreement for payment of parking charges by the complainant to the appellant/opposite party No.1. The vehicle was comprehensively insured with Bajaj Allianz. In the event of accident, if there was any delay in estimating the loss, the complainant could not be burdened with the parking charges. Moreover, once the discount has been given and the complainant has paid the remaining amount, it could not be withdrawn because of cancellation of the new booking.  We have seen the invoice Exhibit R-2 vide which the appellant has billed for Rs.40,337/-; it was neither agreed nor payable. However, since the complainant has already paid this amount and is not in dispute, it need not be touched. The appellant/opposite party No.1 admits that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- towards booking and booking being cancelled, he is entitled to seek refund. In view of this, it is held that the appellant/opposite party No.1 has rightly been directed to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, no case for interference is made out.

10.    Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 15.07.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL