LOVELY AUTOS AND ORS. Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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:

(2.) THE complaint was contested by the opposite parties. Opposite party 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 nonavailability. 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 of transferring/selling the vehicles after purchasing the same and the car in question was also got booked by him for resale. The complaint filed by him is not maintainable and is not within limitation. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. They prayed for the dismissal thereof.

(3.) BOTH the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned Counsel on their behalf partly allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.