DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

Complaint No.720/3.12.2007

Date of order: 6.3.2009.



Ms. Suhag Rani Kapoor wife of late Sh. Ram Dass Kapoor, resident of 3149, Gurdev Nagar, P.O. Lane, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1/ Pal Peugeot Ltd. Kalyan Sill Road, Manpada, Dombivil, 421/204, Distt. Thana, Maharashtra, through its Mg. Director.



2. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. L.B.S. Marg, Kurla, Mumbai-400070 through its Managing Director.

(Opposite Parties)



Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

…..



Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.



Present:

Sh. J.M. Aggarwal Advocate for the complainant.

Complaint against OPNo.1 dismissed.

OP No.2 ex-parte.



O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant on 24.10.1995 booked a car of opposite party no.1 by depositing Rs.25,000/- registration money vide receipt no. 74187. Thereafter, she approached opposite party no.1 many times to deliver the vehicle but they failed to do so. Subsequently, opposite party no.1 closed manufacturing of the car. It was also intimated by opposite party no.1 that they have changed their dealer from M/s Fair Autos Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Delhi Automobiles ltd. near B.S.F. Complex, G.T. Road, Jalandhar. Further intimated that change of dealer will not affect the release of car manufactured by opposite party. It is now alleged in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that opposite party failed to deliver the car or refund the deposited booking amount, which amounts to deficiency in service and she is entitled to refund along with interest, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.2500/-.

2. Complaint against OP No.1 was dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2008 of this Fora for failure of the complainant to furnish the address. Opposite party no.2 did not contest the complaint and as such, it is being proceeded against ex-parte.

3. In order to prove her version, complainant has tendered affidavit and documents in support of her claim.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the file and scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. By way of ex-parte evidence, complainant tendered Ex.C.1 and C5 for paying Rs.25,000/- for booking of the car of opposite party no.1. Thereafter, under registered notice C3 which was received by opposite parties vide acknowledgement Ex.C.4 requested for refund of the amount but they failed to refund the same.

6. Aforesaid unrebutted evidence suggest that the complainant had paid Rs.25,000/- for booking of the car to opposite party no.1 but they failed either to deliver the car or refund the booking amount despite repeated requests and notice of the complainant. This act on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, we allow this complaint and pass ex-parte order against opposite party no.2 directing them to refund an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment and also to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-(Rs. Five Thousands only) and litigation costs of Rs.2000/-(Rs. Two Thousands only). Order be complied within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the same, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.



Announced T.N. Vaidya, President.

Dated 6.3.2009