The central legal point established is that a person does not become a 'consumer' solely by booking a car, and the sale and purchase of goods should have already taken place for a person to be considered a 'consumer'.

ORDER

Gurdev Singh, President Member - The appellants/opposite parties have preferred this appeal against the order dated 22.8.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, S.B.S. Nagar (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Sandeep Kumar, respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was partly allowed and following directions were issued to them:-

(i) to issue a fresh cheque of Rs. 10,823/- on account of the expiry of the validation period of three months of the previous cheque;

(ii) to pay Rs. 21,666/- on account of interest, which he had to pay on loan account; and

(iii) to pay Rs. 3,000/- , as compensation along with the litigation expenses.

2. The complainant alleged, in his complaint, that he got one Maruti Car make Ertiga ZDI booked with opposite party No.1, through opposite party No.2, as the sub agent, on 20.4.2012. At that time he was told that as per the Policy the car shall be delivered to him within 45 days of the date of booking. At the time of booking he deposited Rs. 10,000/- , vide receipt No.REV12000032 dated 19.4.2012. He was instructed by opposite party No.1, through opposite party No.2, to prepare a draft of Rs. 7,00,000/- and accordingly he got prepared draft of that amount bearing No.446837 dated 4.5.2012 from the State Bank of Patiala, vide Loan Account No.65139804671. After that he made a number of visits to the opposite parties for providing the car but they failed to do so and every time they postponed the matter on false and baseless excuses. On 23.7.2012 he received apology letter dated 21.7.2012 from the Customer Care Manager of the opposite parties. Even after that he visited them a number of times but the car was not delivered, which caused a great loss and financial loss to him. The loss suffered by him in the business is to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the financial loss suffered by him is to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- . Despite their failure to provide the car, they did not bother to refund the booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- . He prayed for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-

(i) to refund the sum of Rs. 10,000/- , as booking amount;

(ii) to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- , as damages/compensation for the financial loss, mental and physical agony and humiliation suffered by him in front of his family, friends and relatives or to pay interest at the rate of 18% from the date of payment; and

(iii) to pay Rs. 12,000/- , as litigation expenses.

3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. Opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 filed joint written reply before the District Forum. In their written reply they admitted that the complainant booked the car in question with them on 20.4.2012 and a tentative period of 45 days for the delivery of car was given to him. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they averred that no such direction was given to the complainant to get prepare the draft of Rs. 7,00,000/- . He wanted to have a car of colour Serene Blue, which was not available and information to that effect was duly given to him. He was told about the availability of the cars of other colours but he did not opt for those colours. They had no such intention not to deliver the car and the same could not be delivered on account of non-availability. In fact, the price of the car had gone upto Rs. 8,60,176/- , as ex-showroom price and the complainant had shown his resentment regarding that price and practically refused to accept the car. The booking amount along with interest ( Rs. 10,823/- ) in the form of cheque dated 10.5.2014 was sent to him along with two notices dated 5.6.2014 but he did not get the same encashed in spite of the fact that he was requested to get the same encashed. He is estopped by his own act and conduct, waiver and acquiescence from filing the present complaint. No cause of action has arisen to him to file the same. He is not a 'consumer and is in the habit