Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.C. Gupta, President, Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor and Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
ADARSH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
SARUP KAUR - Respondent
R.B.T. No. 445 of 2008 in Appeal No. 76 of 2002
Decided on : 21-11-2008
Consumer Dispute - Chetak Scooter Scheme - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, focusing on the definitions of consumer, service, deficiency, and unfair trade practice. The court emphasized the rights of the consumer and the obligations of the service provider, highlighting the concept of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. These legal provisions influenced the court's decision in finding the OPs liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and ordering them to refund the amount with interest and pay compensation to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant participated in a Chetak Scooter scheme, paid all instalments, but did not receive the scooter or a refund. She filed a complaint seeking the scooter or a refund with interest and compensation for mental tension and harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the OPs liable for deficiency in service, upheld the complainant's claim, and ordered the OPs to refund the amount with interest and pay compensation to the complainant.
Issues: 1. Complaint being time-barred. 2. Liability of the OPs for refund and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint was not time-barred and found the OPs liable for deficiency in service based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
ORDER
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member - This is an appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 22.11.2001 in complaint case No. 82 of 2001: Smt. Saroop Kaur v. M/s. Chhibber Motors and Another.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that OP, who were authorized agents of Chetak Scooter, floated a scheme for Chetak Scooter on instalments-cum-lottery draw in November 1994 and as per the scheme, each member was to pay an instalment of Rs. 800 per month and one lucky draw was to be taken out each month. Further, as per the scheme, the lucky member, whose name came in the draw, was not to pay any further instalment and he was entitled to get the scooter from the OPs. Even a member, whose name did not come in the draw and who had paid all the instalments, was also entitled to get the scooter from the OPs. It was averred that the complainant had paid all the 30 instalments i.e. full price of the scooter to OP No. 1 through its sister concern but the OPs neither gave him the scooter nor refunded the amount deposited by her, which was to the tune of Rs. 24,000. As per the complainant, she requested OPs number of times to supply the scooter as per their terms and conditions of the scheme or in alternative to refund the price of scooter amounting to Rs. 24,000 with interest @ 18% per annum but the OP ultimately refused to supply the scooter or to refund the amount in the month of March, 2001. Alleging this act to be a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant filed the complaint seeking directions to the OPs to supply a scooter to the complainant or in alternative to refund the price of scooter amounting to Rs. 24,000 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment. The complainant had also sought compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000 on account of mental tension and harassment besides Rs. 2,000 as costs of litigation.
3. OP No. 1 in its written reply firstly took preliminary objection regarding the complaint being filed beyond the period of limitation. OP No. 1 pleaded that it was an authorized agent of Chetak Scooters and they had floated scheme for giving scooters on instalments-cum-lottery draw. It further pleaded that the scheme was run by it in 1998 and not in the year 1994, as averred by the complainant. It was asserted that OP No. 1 had no concern with Chhibber Sons Savings and Finance, Kot Kapura and it had not received any instalment through OP No. 2. As per OP No. 1, it was not liable to pay any scooter or alleged amount of Rs. 24,000 to the complainant. Further pleading that the averments in the complaint had falsely been made and that there was no deficiency in service on its part, OP No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP No. 2 did not file any reply despite due service and was proceeded against ex parte by the learned District Forum.
5. The learned District Forum did not accept the preliminary objection of OP No. 1 regarding the complaint being time barred as the application filed by the complainant for condonation of delay went rebutted and in view of the learned District Forum, the complainant had deposited all the instalments of the scooter and she had been making requests to the OPs to give her the Chetak Scooter or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 24,000 deposited by her. Adverting to the merits of the case, the learned District Forum observed that Exhibit P-1, the affidavit of the complainant and Exhibit 1, copy of Sale Promotion Scheme, shows that OPs floated scheme for giving the scooter on instalment-cum-lottery draw of Rs. 800 per month. The learned District Forum next observed that vide Annexures 2 to 30, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 24,000 as instalments of the scooter with the OPs and had not given her the scooter or refunded the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
