GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RAJEEV SOOD AND COMPANY AND ORS
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Rajeev Sood And Company And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) APPELLANT is aggrieved from the order passed by District Forum, Shimla in Consumer Complaint No. 24/2004, on 06.08.2008. While allowing this complaint, it has been ordered as under: -
"7. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, we allow this complaint. Accordingly the OPs are directed to replace aforesaid car by Opel Corsa 1.4 GL Car with 2003 Model Euro -3 Catalytic Converter with latest specifications, failing which they shall refund to the complainant as total sum of Rs. 5,15,700/ - being sale consideration of aforesaid car supplied to him together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i. e. 11.01.2004 till full payment of aforesaid amount. In addition to this, we also direct the OPs to pay Rs. 25,000/ -as compensation to the complainant for harassment. The litigation cost is quantified at Rs. 5,000/ - payable by both the OPs to the complainant. Both the OPs shall jointly and severally comply with this order within a period of one month after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The copy of this order will be supplied to the parties, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room. "
(2.) FACTS as they emerge from the complaint file are, that respondent No. 1 had sent Initial Booking Letter, Annexure C -1 alongwith 3 bank drafts of the value of Rs. 3,09,500/ -, and balance Rs. 2,06,200/ - was to be paid by ICICI Bank Limited to the appellant at Chandigarh. Subject of Annexure C -1 was "purchase of Opel Corsa 1.4 GL. " Amongst other things the respondent No. 1 had clearly mentioned in it, "Ensure 2003 model and all latest specifications. " And it was with reference to discussion with Shri Sanjay Sharma of ICICI Limited and Shri Jatinder Diwan of ICICI, with Shri Anish Gupta.
(3.) ANOTHER fact disclosed in Annexure C -1 was, "Delivery within 7 days as per instructions. " Copies of bank drafts are Annexure C -2. It appears that the vehicle could not be delivered within specified time in terms of Annexure C -1. As such the respondent No. 1 asked for refund of amount vide Annexure C -3. Respondent No. 1 was persuaded not to cancel the order and take over the vehicle. He was charged service facilitation charges in the sum of Rs. 9,500/ -. Bill issued by the appellant towards total price of cost was in the sum of Rs. 5,06,200/ -. Its copy is attached with Annexure C -5.
Vehicle was delivered to respondent No. 1 at Shimla as it had been directly invoiced from its factory, by the appellant. Form No. 21 issued by the appellant is Annexure C -6 and certificate of temporary registration is Annexure C -7. In Annexure C -6, "Month and year of manufacturing shown is 31.12.2002. " Whereas in Annexure C -7, date of temporary registration of vehicle given is 14.02.2003. This was valid upto 21.02.2003. Copy of Form No. 22 is Annexure C -8. Annexure C -9 is again copy of Form No. 21. Contents of this Annexure are the same except, month and year of manufacture in this document has been shown as "14.02.2003, " instead of 31.12.2002 as mentioned in Annexure C -6.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.