BERKELEY AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. BIRESH CHAUBEY & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by OP No.1 against the order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and OP No.l was directed as follows:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the complaint booked one Swift VXI Car with appellant/OP No.l - Berkeley Automobiles Chandigarh through CSD i.e. OP No.3, by paying a sum of Rs.12,000/ -, vide Receipt dated 18.02.2010 and also submitted requisite documents with OP No.l on 22.02.2010. It was stated that at the relevant time, the price of the car was quoted as Rs.3.95 lacs, but later on, he was told that prices have increased by Rs.6,470/ -, upon which he paid a sum of Rs.1,02,470/ - including amount rate. In the meanwhile, SBI (i.e. State Bank of India) released the loan amount to the appellant on 23.03.2010. It was alleged that OP No.l handed over the draft dated 29.03.2010 amounting to Rs.4,01,469/ - and asked the Complainant to wait for approval from CSD OP No.3. Again, when he was told of further increase in prices by OP No.l, he prepared another draft of Rs.3470/ - and kept on waiting for the instructions from OP No.l, with both the drafts. It was stated that he has paid one EMI of Rs.6083/ - to SBI on 20.04.2010 against the loan and the second one was due on 20.05.2010. The OP -1, however, did not tell him that the sale of cars through CSD was to be stopped w.e.f. 10.4.2010 or that he should deposit the drafts with OP -3 from 5.4.2010 to 9.4.2010 nor he gave him the approval letter due to which he could not get delivery of the car before 10.4.2010It was stated that due to this act of the OPs, the complainant suffered financial loses as well as mental and physical stress. Hence, this complaint, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

(3.) IN its reply OP No. 1 pleaded that the price of the car quoted was as per the price existing on the said date and the Complainant was specifically told that the price shall be charged which would actually exist on the date of delivery. It was denied that the Complainant was ever asked to wait for approval. In fact, the Complainant being a service personnel, was to apply for the CSD approval and bring the same. It was stated that the Complainant had later brought the required documents and after getting the documents ready for applying for approval, the said documents were returned to the Complainant for submitting the same before CSD, Ambala. The Complainant had then submitted the said documents for approval before CSD, Ambala for taking approval for purchasing the car in question. Thus, taking of approval was a matter between Complainant and CSD, in which the appellant/OP No.l had no role to play. It was pleaded that the sale pertaining to Chandigarh was stopped by CSD on 10.04.2010 and the Complainant was, therefore, refused the delivery order. But the Complainant was offered to take the car through Haryana CSD, which he refused due to higher taxes and chose to wait for opening of the sale and prepared the draft of enhanced amount in anticipation of opening of sale. It was stated that if the Complainant was not interested in taking the vehicle, he could collect the booking amount. Denying all other facts of the complaint, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.