UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Sham Sunder, President, Dev Raj, Padma Pandey, Members
Sukant Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Honda Siel Cars Limited & Anr. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 119 of 2014
Decided On : 17-04-2014
Consumer Protection Act - Sale of Car - 29.5.2011 - 31.5.2011 - 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Fact of the Case:
The complainant booked a Honda City car and faced issues with the delivery and promised additional benefits. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant agreed to take delivery of the car on 9.6.2011, not on the promised date of 31.5.2011, and that the promised CD Player was not assured in the sales contract. The court upheld the dismissal of the complaint.
Issues: Discrepancy in delivery date and promised benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant's agreement to take delivery on 9.6.2011 and the absence of assurance for the CD Player in the sales contract were crucial in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the District Forum was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Dev Raj, Member
This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant booked a Honda City car model SMT, Colour Tafeta White, after paying Rs.2 Lacs vide cheque No.255573 dated 30.5.2011, receipt whereof is Annexure C-4, and sales contract dated 29.5.2011, Annexure C-1, was signed. It was stated that certain discounts/additional benefits were offered, as part of the deal, for the purchase of the said vehicle. It was further stated that the total amount payable for the car was settled at Rs.8,40,000/-, including paint protection coating, a body cover and two cushions as additional benefits, while a built-in CD Player was to be provided with the STM model as standard accessories. It was further stated that upon insistence of the Sales Executive, the complainant handed over a post dated cheque No.679116 dated 6.6.2011 in the sum of Rs.6 Lacs to one Mr. Sandeep on 31.5.2011, who tried to convince him (complainant) that, in case, the benefits aforesaid, had to be passed on to him (complainant) he had to show the payment of the balance amount by 31.5.2011 and the delivery of the car would be made on or around 10.6.2011. It was further stated that the aforesaid cheque dated 6.6.2011 was not presented in time for the reasons best known to Opposite Party No.2, and when contacted by the complainant, the Sales Executive namely Sh. Rohit Kohli failed to take the calls.
3. It was further stated that it was informed by some other Sales Executive, that Sh. Rohit Kohli had left the job and, as such, the cheque handed over to him by the complainant was not presented in time. It was further stated that as a consequence, the complainant was informed that there would be a delay in delivery of the booked vehicle till the said cheque was traced and encashed. The said cheque was finally traced and encashed on 9.6.2011. It was further stated that the car was delivered to the complainant on 9.6.2011, after paying the balance amount of Rs.40,000.00, which was also duly got insured with TATA-AIG Insurance on 9.6.2011 itself. It was further stated that it was noticed that the entire billing of the said vehicle was dated 31.5.2011, due to which, the complainant faced problem in getting the same insured in the first place. It was further stated that it was surprising that the entire delivery papers and billing of the car were prepared on a date when even the total amount of the car had not been paid.
4. It was further stated that none of the additional benefits, promised at the time of booking the car, were provided by Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, even refused to provide the CD Player saying that it was not part of the standard fitment of car. It was further stated that having paid the entire amount of Rs.8,40,000/- towards the price of the car, the complainant, under compelling circumstances, had to take the delivery of car. It was further stated that feeling cheated by the Company, the complainant sent a written communication dated 15.11.2011, Annexure C-8, to the Opposite Parties, which did not yield any response. It was further stated that on hearing nothing for one year, the complainant wrote another letter dated 5.10.2012, Annexure C-9, as a result whereof, he was asked to visit the office of Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.2 on 26.10.2012, and paint protection coating to the vehicle was done, whereas, the Sales Head of Opposite Party No.2 refused to provide the promised CD Player, which could only be provided on payment.
5. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to provide all the additional benefits and the promised standard fitments with the vehicle. It
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.