STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 09.01.2018
Date of final hearing: 08.08.2023
Date of pronouncement: 04.10.2023
First Appeal No.23 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Kailash Tailor S/o Late Sh. M.R. Tailor, R/o H.No. 204, Ashoka Enclave Main, Sector-34, Faridabad, District Faridabad.
....Appellant
Versus
- M/s. Nath Motors Private Limited, (Authorised Dealer of Honda Cars India Ltd.) Plot No.5B, Sector 15A, Crown Plaza Mall, Mathura road, Faridabad-121001 through its Director/Principal Officer.
- M/s. Honda Cars India Limited, Plot No. A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur Kasana Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautambudh Nagar (U.P)-201306 through its Managing Directors/Principal Officers. …..Respondents
CORAM: Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. S.K. Tripathi counsel for appellant.
None for respondent No.1.
Dr. Neetu Gupta proxy counsel for Sh. Tarun Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 62 days in filing of present appeal stand condoned for the reason stated in the application for condonation of delay.
2. Challenge in this appeal No.23 of 2018 has been invited by unsuccessful complainant-Kailash Tailor, to the legality of order dated 03.10.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Faridabad (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.64 of 2015, vide which his complaint has been dismissed.
3. Complainant alleges that: he wanted to gift Honda EMT car (petrol version), to his daughter on her marriage to be solemnized on 06.12.2014, so he booked it with OP No.1 on 19.11.2014 at cost of Rs.7,91,619/- including registration charges, service charges, insurance charges. He deposited Rs.50,000/- with OP No.1 through cheque bearing No. 086982 dated 19.11.2014 drawn on SBI, Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad vide receipt No. 105 dated 19.11.2014 in the name of Shri Chander Shekhar Verma. Sales contract was also made, vide which, date of delivery of car was 30.11.2014. When complainant visited showroom of OP No.1 on 30.11.2014; he was told that car in question had been dispatched by OP No.2 from its manufacturing plant and it would reach Faridabad on 01.12.2014, but despite his daily visits from 01.12.2014 to 05.12.2014; OPs did not deliver car to him. On suggestion of OP No.1; complainant agreed to get displayed ‘diesel version car’ on ‘roka ceremony’ as well as at ‘marriage ceremony’ on 05.12.2014 and 06.12.2014. Thereafter, OP No.1 took it back on night of 06.12.2014. He further paid Rs.5,50,000/- vide cheque No. 602921 dated 27.01.2015 drawn on SBI to OP No.1 and stated that he would pay balance amount in cash. He requested OP No.1 to provide details of chassis and engine number of car, to be delivered, to him for the purpose of getting it insured, but OPs did not provide the same. He purchased new car of same model on 22.05.2015 from Pinkcity Motors Private Limited-Jaipur for Rs.7,70,900/- and incurred Rs.7,86,450/- including driver charges, petrol charges etc. Thus, OPs caused mental tension, agony and harassment to him due to their deficient services. He, in his complaint prayed for directing OPs to pay Rs.12,00,000/- i.e. double of amount paid by him along with interest @ 18% p.a. from date of its due till realization and pay Rs.2,50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony as well as harassment and also pay Rs.22,000/- towards litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, OPs raised contest. In defence, taken by OP No. 1, in its preliminary objections; it is pleaded that complaint is not maintainable. Complainant has no cause of action for delay delivery. He has no locus standi to file complaint, as vehicle in question was booked in name of Shri Chander Shekhar Verma; so he (complainant) does not fall under definition of ‘consumer u/s 2 (d) of CPA, 1986’. He neither averred nor placed any evidence to show that he was beneficiary. He had not placed on record back side of sales contract containing terms and conditions of sale. Neither OP No.1, nor its representative had ever committed about delivery of vehicle on 30.11.2014. Date of delivery, mentioned in sales contract, was tentative. Vehicle in question was ready for delivery on its arrival on 06.02.2015 but complainant refused to take its delivery due to increase in its price. Balance of Rs.1,91,619/- was not paid by him till filing of written statement despite requests and reminders. OP No.1 was willing to handover booked vehicle subject to balance payment, parking charges and damages suffered by it. On merits, it was submitted that OP No.1 was only an authorized dealer of OP No.2-manufacturer and it was not open for them to purchase car from open market and sell it to complainant.
5. In separate defence of OP No. 2-manufacturer, it is pleaded that complainant has not disclosed any manufacturing defect in vehicle in question. Complaint is vague, false, evasive etc. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has no locus standi to file complaint as car was booked in name of Chander Shekhar Verma. Rest allegations have been denied.
6. Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
7. On subjectively analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Faridabad vide order dated 03.10.2017 has dismissed the complaint by observing that complainant is not a consumer.
8. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by complainant.
9. Learned counsel for parties have been heard at length. With their able assistance; record too has been perused.
10. On behalf of complainant/appellant, it is contended that impugned order dated 03.10.2017 is erroneous on all fronts. Legal and factual aspects have been flouted. Learned District Consumer Commission has lost sight of fact that complainant has locus standi to file complaint, as car was booked by him on occasion of his daughter’s marriage, to be given to her, as ‘gift’ in marriage. This circumstance would ipso facto confer locus standi to complainant to file complaint.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for OPs/respondents in one voice have urged that impugned order dated 03.10.2017 suffers from no illegality and same be maintained.
12. On subjectively and critically analyzing the rival submissions; this Commission is of firm opinion that complainant has no case. Ex.C-1 is receipt dated 19.11.2014 of the amount of Rs.50,000/-. It reflects that this amount has been received from Chander Shekhar Verma. Ex.C-2 recites the ex-showroom price of booked vehicle plus other usual charges in form of insurance, registration etc. Though document Ex.C-2 bears signature of complainant, under column “signature of customer” but never the less this document too recites customer’s name as: Chander Shekhar Verma. Ex.C-6 is another receipt dated 27.01.2015 of the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- issued by Nath Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.1), which also provide significant glimpse that this amount (Rs.5,50,000/-) too has been received from Chander Shekhar Verma. On providing conjoint reading to documents/receipts Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-6 it is established unerringly that actual customer who booked the car was Chander Shekhar Verma. This being so, mere signing of document Ex.C-2 by complainant, will not cloth and attire him (complainant) with any status of consumer. Complainant could not wriggle out from enormous ramifications and legal implications flowing from documents/receipts Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-6. Rightly, it has been held by learned District Consumer Commission-Faridabad in its order dated 03.10.2017 (impugned herein) that complainant (Kailash Tailor) is not a consumer, while non-suiting him. This Commission also holds that complainant has no locus standi to file complaint.
13. For the reasons recorded above, this Commission does not find any manifest error, legal or factual, in the final conclusion drawn by learned District Consumer Commission-Faridabad. Impugned Order dated 03.10.2017 is the outcome of meticulous appreciation of facts and evidence by District Consumer Commission-Faridabad. Complainant has rightly been non-suited. His complaint has been rightly dismissed. Impugned order dated 03.10.2017 is affirmed and maintained. Present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
14. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 04th October, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
