Y P SOOD Vs. BERKELEY AUTOMOBILES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 6.10.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the complaint, in brief, are that on 8.4.2008 the complainant booked a Maruti Swift Dzire VDI Car (Arctic White Colour) for a total basic price of Rs. 5,93,167 with M/s Berkeley Automobiles Ltd.(OP -l), authorized dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (OP -2) by depositing Rs. 50,000 against receipt Annexure C -1. The complainant was assured that the car would be delivered to him within the maximum period of four months from the date of its booking. However, the delivery of the car was made to him on 17.11.2008 only for Rs. 6,09,731 and that too upon his repeated visits. The complainant paid Rs. 3,22,000 vide cheque No. 595496 dated 17.11.2008 and Rs.2,46,935 in cash. It was alleged by the complainant that in the invoice dated 17.11.2008, the OP deliberately mentioned the date of booking as 17.11.2008 instead of 8.4.2008 which showed the unfair trade practice adopted by them. It has been alleged that the OPs did not follow procedure in supplying the vehicles and there were number of vehicles, received during this time, which were delivered to the persons who had booked later on. Upon protest by the complainant, OPs have paid him interest of Rs.3,386 on the booking of Rs. 50,000. Hence this complaint was filed alleging that the acts and conduct of OP -1 in giving out of turn delivery of the car with the intention to earn black money amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(3.) OP -1 in their reply did not dispute the fact with regard to the booking of the car. It was stated that the complainant was told that the delivery of the vehicle would be subject to the supply of the particular colour of the car chosen by him and further that the period was tentative and could increase or decrease. It was stated that the complainant concealed the contents of letter dated 6.8.2008 whereby he was informed that due to production constraint, the delivery of the vehicle shall be delayed by 1 -2 months and offered impressive interest @ 12% p.a. to the tune of Rs. 3,386 on the booking amount of Rs. 50,000 which was received by him at the time of delivery of the vehicle and, therefore, the complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint qua it. Pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OP -1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.