STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
First Appeal No.322 of 2020
Date of the Institution: 05.08.2020
Date of Order: 19.04.2023
First Appeal No.322 of 2020
IN THE MATTER OF
Sarita Rani D/o Shri Karnail Singh (R/o House No. 187, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri) W/o Shri Rajan Kumar, R/o Village Tehi Jattan, Tehsil Bilaspur,District Yamuna Nagar. .….Appellant
Through Counsel, Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate
Versus
1. Pandit Automobile Pvt. Ltd. Gobindpuri Bye Pass Road, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Through its Managing Director.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Gurgaon Plant, Old Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015 through its Managing Director.
Through Counsel, Mr. Naren Pratap Singh, Advocate
.….Respondents
CORAM: Mr.S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.
Present:- Mr. Ramesh Goyal, counsel for the complainant.
Mr. Naren Pratap Singh, counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. Hitender Kansal, counsel for responded No.2
O R D E R
PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the complaint put forth by the present appellant then complainant Smt. Sarita Rani was dismissed on 03.07.2020, the appellant has come up into this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed the complaint alleging inter-alia that as she was to get married in the near future so she got booked an Alto K-10 car with opposite party No.1-agency on 25.09.2018 after paying a sum of Rs.1,000/-only. At that point of time complainant has also assured opposite party No.1 to pay up the remaining price of the car shortly and even thereafter she also got prepared a demand draft of Rs.3,80,000/- in favour of opposite party No.1 on 25.09.2018. However, later on the said complaint and her fiancé made up their mind to buy SUV Maruti Brezza car instead of Alto K-10 and this is how finally SUV Maruti Brezza car was purchased in the name of her fiancé Mr. Rajan Kumar from opposite party No.1 and got its delivery on 10.10.2018 almost two days prior to their marriage. Even as per the contentions put forth by the complainant concerned officials of the opposite party No.1 had also assured them that the booking already made by her (complainant) of the Alto K-10 Car will also be cancelled in due course. However, to her utter surprise she received a legal notice on 04.02.2019 shot off by opposite party No.1 thereby reminding her of having booked an Alto K-10 Car on 25.09.2018 after paying a sum of Rs.1000/- and assuring them to pay up the balance amount of Rs.3,80,000/- towards its price. Further it was also disclosed in the said notice that an Alto K-10 car bearing chasis No. MA3EZDE1S00456931 has been lying parked in its premises and complainant was also directed to pay the GST and other parking charges to the said opposite party No.1. Alarmed with the above said situation, complainant arranged to transfer a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- in the account of opposite party No.1 and also communicated this development to the said opposite party No.1 under written intimation of 30.03.2019 and also requested him to deliver the said car. In response to the said intimation opposite party No.1also addressed complainant having not received of the said amount of Rs.3,80,000/- and also told her regarding its having sold of the said car to some other person. Continuing further complainant has alleged that the way opposite party No.1 did not cancel her booking of Alto car and also later on compelled her to deposit a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- that clearly indicates as to how opposite party No.1 was deficient in its service and was also negligent thereby leading her to file this complaint with a prayer of directing opposite party No.1 to pay up a sum of Rs.3,81,000/- including the booking charges of Rs.1,000/- along with interest to be charged @ 18% and of course litigation charges of Rs.21,000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.90,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment etc.
3. In response to the notice respondent No.2, manufacturer Maruti Suzuki India Limited Gurugram did not come forward to contest this complaint and was thus proceeded against ex-parte whereas opposite party No.1 the dealer caused its appearance and contested this complaint admitting that the complainant indeed got an Alto K-10 car booked with them on 25.09.2018 with a sum of Rs.1,000/- and thereafter she has also handed over a demand draft of Rs.3,80,000/- dated 28.09.2018 as well. Further, the answering opposite party No.1 also disclosed of its having issued invoice in respect of the said car on 26.09.2018 itself and that of its having deposited the requisite GST and other charges with the governmental agencies. It also alleged that when the answering opposite party No.1 sent the said demand draft dated 28.09.2018 worth Rs.3,80,000/- for collecting the proceeds there of along with other such like instruments they were shocked to learn that the said demand draft was found to be cancelled at the behest of the complainant. Faced with this situation the answering opposite party No.1 was left with no other alternative but to issue a legal notice and got it served upon the complainant on 04.02.2019 which was also responded by the complainant on 27.02.2019 and thereafter even complainant also arranged to got an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- transferred in account of opposite party No.1 which was again with the same banker where complainant was also working in officer capacity. But despite all these things having happened and answering opposite party No.1 was unable to know that a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- stood credited to its account on 25.02.2019 because normally several such like transactions take place in the current account maintained by the said opposite party No.1with the Punjab National Bank, New Grain Market, Jagadhri Branch, where the complainant has been working. However, when answering opposite party No.1 learnt about this development then it also refunded a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- to complainant on 25.02.2019 after deducting GST and other charges and that being so the answering opposite party No.1 was never deficient in its service rather it was the complainant who happened to be the author of her own wrongs. So the complaint being devoid of merit deserves dismissal.
4. Record reveals that after taking into consideration the respective contentions of both the parties and documentary evidence led on record by them learned District Commission dismissed the complaint vide order dated 03.07.2020 which has now been impugned by way of this appeal.
5. This argument has been advanced by Shri Ramesh Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Naren Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Hitender Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire record of the appeal as well as original record of the District Commission, evidence led on behalf of both the parties has been properly perused and examined.
6. It is not disputed that complainant booked the Alto K 10 car with the OP on 25.09.2018 vide depositing Rs.1000/- as booking amount and thereafter also handed over a bank draft of Rs.3,80,000/- dated 28.09.2018 to the OP. The OP issued invoice dated 26.09.2018 and paid the GST and other charges with the Govt. agencies. It is also admitted that complainant and her fiancé finally decided to buy Maruti Brezza Car instead of Alto car from the same OP No.1, which was delivered on 10.10.2018 in the name of Shri Rajan Kumar. It is also admitted that Ops issued notice with regard to the balance amount due on 04.02.2019, which was duly replied by complainant in abridged form and also deposited the balance amount as demanded with the OP. In response thereto the OP admitted that an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- is being refunded to her after deducting GST and other charges, however during the arguments it was clarified by the counsel for the respondent No.1 that an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- could not be credited to the account of the complainant for the reason that said account of complainant was already closed and in operative and as a result the amount was remitted back with the opposite party No.1. If we look at all the facts and circumstances of the case the inevitable conclusion is that the conduct of both the parties have not been above board. In-fact both of them have tried to outsmart each other. To quote the same, original complainant being working as an officer in the same bank branch has been thoroughly displayed unprofessional approach when she unauthorizedly managed to start the transfer of sum of Rs.3,80,000/- into account of OP, firm on the basis of demand draft in its favour which was presented for collection of its proceeds simply for the reason that the alto car which was intended to be bought by complainant has decided to reconsider this move and has afterwards decided to buy Brezza car as per advice of her fiancé, despite the fact that this very draft was duly handed over to OP being price of the alto car and the OP had presented it with its banker for realizing its proceeds. Likewise, it is also quite unlikely as to how OP could have issued the invoice of the alto car a couple of days prior to its having got the full price of this car. But somehow or the other OP must have got irked or bugged due to the unauthorized act of complainant that is why in order to pay back complainant in the same coin, OP must have shown to have issued the invoice in the back date and had paid all the usual charges to government. However, learned district Commission has acted in a balanced manner. Since, the amount is not refunded, the opposite party no.1 is liable to pay this amount i.e. Rs.1,95,000/- to the complainant and learned District Commission has wrongly observed that opposite party No.1 has already repaid it. Thus, this part of the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain to this extent only.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted only to this extent, the impugned order is modified and the end result the complaint is partly allowed.
8. Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed off accordingly in terms of this order.
9. A copy of this order be provided to all the parities free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
10. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced on 19th April, 2023
J.Y.
S.P. Sood
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-I
