HEMANT GOYAL MOTORS PVT LTD Vs. VARUN BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/opposite party No. 1 has preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.9.2011 passedby District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant,VarunBharti, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to refund 10% of the price of the vehicle in addition to Rs. 4,000, having been received in excess from the complainant. They were directed to pay consolidated amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000 for causing mental agony and harassment to him and in case of non -compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the realization of whole of the said amount.

(2.) AS per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant wanted to buy car make Indigo CSELX BS basis (in short, "the vehicle") for which he contacted oppositeparty No. 1, which is Branch Office of opposite party No. 2. The Sales Executive of the opposite parties visited him and assured that they would be in position to deliver the vehicle at Barnala provided the payment of the price of the vehicle is made in advance. On that assurance he gave abank draft of Rs. 5,30,353 in favour of opposite party No. 2. After the draft was collected, he was asked to take the delivery from Patiala, which he nad to do despite lot of inconvenience and this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The bill of Rs. 5,26,353 was issued though the demand draft was for the above said amount. He, vide letters dated 22.3.2011 and 11.5.2011, requested opposite party No. 2 to refund the excess amount charged from him but the same was not refunded. After he received the registration certificate of the car, he came to know that mala fidely the opposite parties had delivered him a Model of 2010 by telling that the latest Model was being delivered and the same should have been of 2011, as the car was purchased in the month of February 2011, vide Bill No. 1040 dated 3.2.2011. This act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. He served a legal notice through his Counsel upon the opposite parties but they failed to redress his grievances. In the complaint, he made a prayer for issuing directions to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with 2011 Model, to pay Rs. 4,000 received in excess, Rs. 50,000 or account of mental agony and harassment caused to him and Rs. 20,000 as litigation expenses.

(3.) THE opposite parties did not appear before the District Forum in spite of the service and were proceeded against ex parte. For proving the averments made in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex. C -l and the documents Ex. C -2 to Ex. C -12. After going through that evidence and hearing learned Counsel on hisbehalf the District Forum allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.