Haryana

StateCommission

A/32/2019

M/S KANAV MOTORS AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHANU - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.BANSAL

27 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.32 of 2019

                                                Date of Institution: 11.01.2019

                                                         Date of order: 27.04.2023

 

1.      Kanav Motors Private Limited through its Sales Manager, Gaurav Care of Pearls Fords, Kurukshetra.

2.      Gaurav, Sales Manager, Kanav Motors Private Limited, care of pearls Fords, Kurukshetra.

3.      VimmiBakshi care of Pearls Fords, Kurukshetra.

All through its authorized signtory-cum-Asstt. Manager Mr.Anil Kumar, Kanav Motors, Karnal.

…..Appellants

Versus

Bhanu D/o Harish Wadhwa R/o Sivan Distt. Kaithal.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.S.R.Bansal, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.Siddharth Gulati, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The brief facts of the case are that  on 14.02.2016 complainant booked a car make ecosportAmbietc D/W, colour Diamond white petrol version for a sum of Rs.6,80,000/-.  On 20.02.2016, the documents were to be delivered to her. The car was booked with the opposite parties at Kurukshetra to be presented to complainant at the time of her marriage, which was to be solemnized on 22.02.2016. The complainant paid Rs.11,000/- as booking amount to the Ops.  However Ops sent a letter dated 16.02.2016 to her expressing their inability to deliver the car on the day of her marriage.  She requested the Ops to fulfill the agreement of 14.02.2016 but  OPs did not deliver the car. Therefore complainant and her family members were compelled to purchase a diesel driven car from Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd., Karnal for a sum of Rs.7,95,000/- vide invoice No.VSCF13216KN. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

2.      Notice was issued to the Ops. Howeverlateron, OP No.2 and 3 were given up by counsel for complainant on 03.03.2017 whereas OP No.1 appeared raising some preliminary objection about accruing cause of action, locus standi, maintainability of complaint etc. and requested to dismiss the complaint.

          On merits, it was alleged that it was a matter of finance and as such the clerk concerned may kindly be called for proper adjudication of the case. Thus there  was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

3.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Kurukshetrahas allowed the complaint vide order dated 04.12.2018. Relevant para is reproduced below:-

“Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint against OP No.1 And direct the OP No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.11,000/- as booking amount to the complainant and further to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant as litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9%  p.a. from the date of order till realization.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.      These argumentswere advanced by Sh.S.R.Bansal, learned counsel for appellants as well as Sh.Siddharth Gulati,learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance entire record of the appealas well as the original record of District Commission, evidence led on behalf of  both the parties has also properly perused and examined.

6.      It is not disputed that complainant booked petrol version car with the OP No.1 on 15.02.2016 and paid Rs.11,000/- as booking amount to the said OP No.1.  It is also admitted that an email dated 16.02.2016was sent by the Ops with regard to the non delivery of vehicle due to some problem.  Perusal of the file reveals that opposite party No.1 has cancelled the booking of the car after one day itself. As it was told to OPs that the said car was supposed to be presented at the time of marriage ceremony of marriage of complainant that being so it was required of the OP  to have ensured categorically with its supplies regarding availability of the vehicle in question by all the means. If there was some doubt then why Ops booked the car in the first instance itself. Still it was good on their part to have informed the complainant timely. So, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.1.   The complainant was rightly entitled to  Rs.11,000/- as booking amount from OP No.1. However the complainant was not entitled for compensation and litigation expenses.

7.      In view of the above, while accepting the appeal partly, the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission is modified to the extent that the complainant would be entitled to get the amount of the compensation of Rs.5,000/-  as compensation instead of Rs.25,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.11,000/-.   The other relief granted by the learned District Commission stands affirmed.  With this modification, the appeal stands disposed off.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be re-imbursed to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

9.      Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

10.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.    File be consigned to record room.

 

27thApril, 2023                                                                                S. P. Sood                                                                                                                            Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)