Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1079/2013

AMITABH GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ZEDEX NISSAN - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2018

ORDER

            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                                        Consumer complaint no.  1079/2013                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution            13/12/2014

                                                                                                        Order reserved on            29/01/2018

                                                                                                        Date of Order                    30/01/2018               

In matter of

Mr Amitabh Gupta, adult

S/o  Sh S C Rajvanshi      

R/o- 76 A, IInd Floor, St. no. 3

Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029...…………….Complainant                                                                    

                                                                           

                                                                              Vs

1-Mr Nitin Tipnis – Director Marketing

Hover Automobiles (Zedex Nissan)    

Kallina, Grande Palladium   

5^th Floor, B Wing, 175, CST Road,

Kalina, Santacruz East, Mumbai- 400098

 

2-Mr Kenichiro Yomura,

President-  Nisan Motors

ASV Ramanna Twr, 3^rd Floor,

37&38, Venkat Narayan Road,

T. N agar, Chennai 600017, Tamilnadu

 

3- M/s Zedex Nissan (Unit of Shekhavati Electronics) 

Plot no. – 89, FIE, Patpargunj Industrial Area

Delhi 110092………………………………………………………………………………Opponents   

 

Complainant ………..………………………….In Person

Opponent 1&2.………………..….............Singhania & Singhania - Associates –Advocates

Opponent 3……………………………………..AR –Shekhavati Electronics

   

Quorum …………………………………………..Sukhdev Singh           President

                                                                   Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                                                                   Smt Harpreet Kaur    Member 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari-Member –

Brief - This complaint has been filed by complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for false promise to deliver choice booked car through advertisement by OP1, 2 and 3 as deficiency in supplying the booked car.

Facts of the case                                                                                                   

Complainant booked new Nissan Micra Active –XEP, brick red M Black colour car from OP3 after paying advance booking amount Rs 20,000/- through cheque vide no. 122133 on dated 07/07/2013 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce , New Delhi branch (Anne. 2). OP3 told that the on road price would be approx 392000/-(Ann.3) and expected delivery would be by 22/07/2013, but on inquiring about the date of delivery, it was told by OP3 that the said booked car had not been supplied by OP1 and 2 and on further inquiring by complainant it was told that OP1/manufacturer had not yet manufactured the said car model and if he wished could take another available good brand model as Nissan Micra Active XL Petrol Brick Red colour which would cost Rs 401699/-(Ann. 4) and on road it would cost him Rs 4,50,000/- or he could wait till the booked car would be available.   

Complainant stated that he asked for refund of the booking amount, but OP3 told that a sum of Rs 5000/-would be deducted for which number of emails were sent to OP1 and 2, but no reply was received. So complainant decided to purchase higher version of car as Nissan Micra Active XE Brick Red M Black model on 09/09/2013 which cost him financial load of sum of Rs 51603/-(Ann. 13,14,15 &16). Thereafter complainant sent notice to OP1 on 12/10/2013 (Ann. 17) for refund of extra money paid by the complainant for deficient act of OP3 for advertising false model. When no reply was received, filed this complaint for refund of Rs 60,000/- and compensation of Rs one lac for mental harassment.

 

Notices were served. Authorised representative of OP3/Shekhavati electronics filed written statement and denied all the allegations of complainant. It was stated that there were no such assurances given by them on behalf of OP1 and OP2. It was admitted that complainant had agreed for the car of his choice, but never refused or denied to deliver the car. Due to manufacturing of the said model car was delay in supply (of the XE model car) as on time, but complainant was in need of booked car, so asked to change the model and provide the available model. It was admitted that the ex showroom price of XE and XL were different and sales executive of OP3 had explained in detail about every features of XL model with on road price for which complainant got agreed and paid the balance amount in cash for XL model of Zedex Nissan Micra which was delivered without any delay or deficiency.  Hence there was no deficiency in their services or any type of cheating as alleged by the complainant. Hence this misconceived complaint may be dismissed.  

OP1 and 2 jointly submitted their written statement and denied all the allegations put by the complainant. There was no contractual relationship with complainant to OPs directly, so all the allegations were false and incorrect. It was admitted that Dealership Agreement was between OP3, but all works were done as per the company’s policy and not individually. As the complainant had chosen higher version of the said car and paid its cost, so there was deficiency on their part. It was also stated that there was no role of directors under their names and so their names should had been deleted because company deals with all the work and business as per the company norms. Whenever any higher version of car was selected by any complainant had to pay difference of amount to the booked car. Here in this case, complainant had chosen higher version of car and agreed to pay high charges of selected version of the car available with OP3. It was stated that OP1 and 2 manufactures four variant of Zedex Micra cars and every car had different price slab as per the broacher enclosed (ExOPW1/1).So this complaint be dismissed.  

Complainant filed his rejoinder denying all the replies given in the written statements of OP through a single rejoinder. He also filed evidences through his own affidavit and reaffirmed his facts and evidences were correct.

OP 1 & OP2 jointly filed their evidences through Ms Reshma Ravindran, Deputy Manager Legal with OP2 and stated on oath in her affidavit that all the process were adopted as per the company’s conditions and choosing a higher version for a earlier booked car was neither deficiency nor denial from their part and admitted that delay usually occurs due to various reasons. Here complainant desired for refund of his booking amount as a full, which was against the terms and condition of the company and when he chosen a higher version of available car from OP, all his amount paid through cheque (Rs 20,000/-) was adjusted and rest he paid in cash. Hence, there was no deficiency on their parts.  

Arguments were heard from both the LD counsels and after perusing the file, order was reserved.   

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was observed that complainant had paid booking amount and due to non availability of specific ‘selected’ model of the car, OP3 had offered new higher version available car with them and explained all the features and cost ex-showroom and on road price for which complainant agreed and paid balance amount in cash. The selected higher version car had been used by the complainant without any reported defects pertaining to manufacturing defect or deficiency on OPs.

The allegation of complainant that OP did not provide choice booked new car on the specific date does not carry any merit and opting for a higher version of car proved miserably failure to prove deficiency of services of OPs. The complainant being a qualified and experienced person knows all these facts and had knowledge about various versions of the car from OP. He had made all the balance payment in cash also proves that for booking a small segment luxurious car means knowledge of every product and service system. Failing to prove deficiency of OPs without any merit this complaint deserve to be dismissed, so dismissed without any order to cost.    

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per the Regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under the Regulation 20(1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                              Mrs Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                         

                                                Sukhdev Singh  President