Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that the complainant booked a Porsche Night Blue Roof Convertible Car and paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to Opposite Party No.3 vide cheque dated 07.12.2016. The complainant also deposited Rs.5 lakhs in cash to Opposite Party No.3 on 22.03.2017 for and on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 at Ludhiana. In this way, the complainant paid Rs.10 lakhs to the Opposite Parties. It was made clear to Opposite Party No.3 that the configuration and specification of the car will be as per the requirements of the complainant and the car was to be delivered at Ludhiana. But it was surprising that the model shown to the complainant was totally different than the actual car so booked by the complainant due to which he was compelled to change the colour from Night Blue to Jet Black Metallic. Thereafter, the complainant was regularly requesting to deliver the car in question, but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the same to the complainant within a reasonable period despite written reminders sent to the Opposite Parties whereas the complainant was always ready with the balance amount. But the Opposite Parties have failed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the booking amount of Rs.10 lakhs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from its deposit dates and also to pay Rs.50,000/- s compensation for mental torture and harassment and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the complainant had approached the answering Opposite Parties and expressed his interest in purchasing a Porsche Boxster 718, night blue colour with interiors in black. Certain optional equipment was chosen by the complainant to be fitted in the car and consequently, the ex-showroom price of the car came to Rs.92,41,800/- and the booking amount to be paid by the complainant was 20% of the price of the car which amounted to Rs.18 lakhs and the balance price would have to be paid three weeks before delivery of the car. It was further communicated to the complainant that the cancellation of booking could only be done within 7 days from the date of booking and that in the event of cancellation beyond the period of 7 days from booking and that in the event of cancellation beyond the period of 7 days from booking the booking amount would stand forfeited and the complainant would not be entitled to any refund, but the complainant has failed to make the payment of entire booking amount and conveyed to the answering Opposite Parties that the complainant could only make payment of Rs.5 lakhs and that the balance booking amount would be paid by the complainant within a week. As a gesture of goodwill, the answering Opposite Parties acceded to the request of the complainant and accepted the booking of the complainant without insisting on payment of the entire booking amount being 20% of the sale price. It is admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.5 lakhs at the time of booking, but thereafter, the complainant did not deposit any amount on account of balance amount of the price of car in question despite repeated requests and reminders, hence as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the booking amount of Rs.5 lakhs of the complainant was forfeited and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the instant complaint is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed with costs.
4. None has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, and hence Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant have tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 has not tendered any document.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written arguments of the complainant and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the Complainants as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that the complainant booked a Porsche Night Blue Roof Convertible Car and paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to Opposite Party No.3 vide cheque dated 07.12.2016. The complainant also deposited Rs.5 lakhs in cash to Opposite Party No.3 on 22.03.2017 for and on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 at Ludhiana. In this way, the complainant paid Rs.10 lakhs to the Opposite Parties. It was made clear to Opposite Party No.3 that the configuration and specification of the car will be as per the requirements of the complainant and the car was to be delivered at Ludhiana. But it was surprising that the model shown to the complainant was totally different than the actual car so booked by the complainant due to which he was compelled to change the colour from Night Blue to Jet Black Metallic. Thereafter, the complainant was regularly requesting to deliver the car in question, but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the same to the complainant within a reasonable period despite written reminders sent to the Opposite Parties whereas the complainant was always ready with the balance amount. But the Opposite Parties have failed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant had approached the answering Opposite Parties and expressed his interest in purchasing a Porsche Boxster 718, night blue colour with interiors in black. Certain optional equipment was chosen by the complainant to be fitted in the car and consequently, the ex-showroom price of the car came to Rs.92,41,800/- and the booking amount to be paid by the complainant was 20% of the price of the car which amounted to Rs.18 lakhs and the balance price would have to be paid three weeks before delivery of the car. It was further communicated to the complainant that the cancellation of booking could only be done within 7 days from the date of booking and that in the event of cancellation beyond the period of 7 days from booking and that in the event of cancellation beyond the period of 7 days from booking the booking amount would stand forfeited and the complainant would not be entitled to any refund, but the complainant has failed to make the payment of entire booking amount and conveyed to the answering Opposite Parties that the complainant could only make payment of Rs.5 lakhs and that the balance booking amount would be paid by the complainant within a week. As a gesture of goodwill, the answering Opposite Parties acceded to the request of the complainant and accepted the booking of the complainant without insisting on payment of the entire booking amount being 20% of the sale price. It is admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.5 lakhs at the time of booking, but thereafter, the complainant did not deposit any amount on account of balance amount of the price of car in question despite repeated requests and reminders, hence as per the terms and conditions of the contract, the booking amount of Rs.5 lakhs of the complainant was forfeited, but to prove such contention, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 has failed to adduce any iota of evidence as well as terms and conditions of the agreement, if any, agreed between the complainant as well as Opposite Parties and in the absence of any iota of evidence, we are not agreed with the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Parties.
9. The case of the complainant that he has booked a Porsche Night Blue Roof Convertible Car and paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to Opposite Party No.3 vide cheque dated 07.12.2016. Further contended that he has also deposited Rs.5 lakhs in cash to Opposite Party No.3 on 22.03.2017 for and on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 at Ludhiana. In this way, the complainant paid Rs.10 lakhs to the Opposite Parties, but on the other hand, the defence of the Opposite Parties is that the complainant has paid only Rs.5 lakhs with them and after that, nothing has been paid by the complainant on account of remaining booking amount of the car in question. Admittedly, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the Opposite Parties through cheque bearing No. 793928 drawn on Deusche Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana from his account No. 000026761790019 dated 07.12.2016 which was duly encahsed by the Opposite Parties, but the complainant has failed to prove on record by adducing any iota of evidence that he has ever paid further Rs.5 lakhs with the Opposite Parties.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the Complainant and direct the Opposite parties jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs only) to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of its deposit with Opposite Parties i.e. 07.12.2016 till its actual realization. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
