Delhi

StateCommission

A/266/2015

MOHINI JAISINGHANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOUTH END HONDA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 07.12.2016

 

First Appeal No. 266/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 07.05.2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Delhi in complaint case No. 119/2015)

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                Mohini Jaisinghani,

          2/3, Kalkaji Extension,

          New Delhi-110019

               

 

……Appellant     Versus     1. South End Honda Saket Motors Private Ltd. Ground Floor, 12/12A, MGF Metropolitan Mall, Saket, New Delhi-110017   2. Honda Cars India Ltd. Plot No. A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 201306                                                                                …….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.             This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made to order dated 07.05.2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi (in short ‘the District Forum’) whereby the complaint case No. 119/2015 has been dismissed in limine.

2.             Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that a complaint u/s 12 of the Act was filed by the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the Ld. District Forum stating therein that on 21.02.2015 she had booked a Honda Amaxe- EMT version in silver colour with respondent-1/OP-1 by paying INR 21,000/-. The respondent-1/OP-1 had given mid- February as the date when the car would be delivered. On that basis she had arranged for the loan. It was alleged that in early February 2015 she went back to respondent-1/OP-1 to know the status of delivery. She was informed that the car would be delivered in March 2015. On the alleged assurance of the delivery of the car in March 2015, the loan amount of Rs. 5,09,322/-  was disbursed to respondent-2/OP-1 on 28.02.2015. It was alleged that even in March 2015 the car was not delivered to her by respondent-1/OP-1. In the meantime, two loan installments of Rs. 11,107/- each for the month of March & April were paid by her without actually having the delivery of the car. She had alleged that the car was delivered to her on 16.04.2015. By then insurance rates were increased and she had to pay Rs. 21,00/- more towards insurance of the car. It was alleged that the respondent-1/OP-1 had caused mental agony and harassment to her in not delivering the car as promised. She had filed the aforesaid complaint before the Ld. District Forum with the prayer that respondents/OPs to apologize her for the inconvenience caused. She had also made prayer for refund of Rs. 22,214/- towards two installments which she had paid without having the car. The appellant/complainant had also prayed for refund of Rs. 2,100/- towards increase in insurance rates, Rs. 10,000/- towards the interest for retaining Rs. 5,00,000/- for approximately two months because of early disbursal of loan, Rs. 50,000/- toward the physical strain and mental agony caused to her for over two months of delay in delivering the car and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation costs.

3.             Ld. District Forum on hearing the appellant/complainant and on pursuing the documents annexed with the complaint had dismissed the complaint in limine by observing that there was no document on record to prima-facie suggest that the respondent/OP had at any point of time promised the appellant/complainant that the delivery of the car would be made to her in March 2015 or that respondent’s/OP’s representative gave any such assurance to her or that only on alleged understanding the appellant/complainant had got the car financed. Accordingly, the complainant was dismissed.

4.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed. The appellant/complainant is appearing in person. She has argued that the Ld. District Forum has completely ignored the complete facts of the case. It is contended that appellant/complainant had acted on faith and sometimes the things are not put in writing. It is contended that even observation about the loan adjustment is wrongly made and material loss has been caused to her on account of delay in car delivery as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5.             On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-1/OP-1 has submitted that the Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that no prima-facie case has been made out against respondent-1/OP-1. It is submitted that a frivolous appeal is filed by appellant/complainant. It is submitted that a contract was executed between the parties on 21.01.2015 which gave the details and particulars of the car and expected time of delivery was mentioned therein. It is submitted that time of delivery was depending upon the availability and supply of car from the manufacturer. It is submitted that in March 2015 the appellant/complainant was offered white colour car but the appellant/complainant refused to take the same as she wanted silver colour car which was booked by her. Ld. Counsel for the respondent-1/OP-1 has referred to e-mail dated 24.03.2015 on record. It is submitted that two installments were paid by appellant/complainant to the bank from where she had taken the loan and not to the respondent-1/OP-1 as such respondent-1/OP-1 can’t be held liable in any manner. It is further submitted that it is her own decision to get the vehicle financed and respondent-1/OP-1 cannot be blamed for it.

6.             Ld. counsel for the respondent-2/OP-2 has also supported the arguments of respondent-1/OP-1.

7.             We have heard the parties and perused the material on record.

8.             It is admitted position that appellant/complainant had booked the car i.e. Honda Amaze – EMT Version in silver color vide letter of contract dated 21.1.2015 and paid Rs. 21,000/- to respondent-1/OP-1 towards booking amount. The aforesaid document is also perused. The tentative date of delivery mentioned is one month (approximately). It nowhere gives the exact date of delivery to appellant/complainant. The name of the representative who has allegedly assured her that the delivery of the car would be given is also not stated by appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant has failed to point out any material on record showing that any confirm date of delivery was given to her. Further, the stand of the respondent-1/OP-1 is that the time for delivery can never be certain as the same is depending upon several factors including availability of supply from the manufacturer. It is not the stand of appellant/OP that the vehicle was in physical possession of respondent-1/OP-1 and the delivery was not given to her. Further even if she had given two installments to the bank towards repayment of loan before delivery of the car, the same has not caused any loss to her in any manner as in any event she had to repay for the loan. She had paid the loan installment to the bank and not to the respondent-1/OP-1. Further it was her own decision to repay the loan. Further, perusal of material on record shows that appellant/complainant herself had gone to get the vehicle financed before it was ready for the delivery and had made payment to the bank as such the respondent-1/OP-1 cannot be held liable for the same. For increase in insurance rates also, the respondent-1/OP-1 can’t be held responsible.

9.             Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we find no fault in the reasoning given by the Ld. District Forum in dismissing the complaint. No case is made out against respondents/OPs.

10.            Appeal stands dismissed.

                A copy of the order be sent to the parties as well as to Ld. District Forum.

                File be consigned to record room.

   (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member