AMARJIT SINGH SIDHU Vs. PAL PEUGEOT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant seeks refund of a sum of Rs.4,32,576/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. The complainant has also prayed for award of damages of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and torture undergone by him because of non-delivery of the car even after making the full payment of the price of the car. A sum of Rs.10,000/- has been claimed as Counsel fee for sending legal notice and for filing the complaint. The total amount claimed by the complainant is of a sum of Rs.10,31,256/-.

(2.) The complainant booked a Pal Peugeot car manufactured by O. P. No.1 - M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. through its authorised dealer i. e. M/s. Amardeep Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid at the time of booking of the car vide demand draft dated 28.10.1995 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. A Priority No.0085 was allotted on 24.6.1996 to the complainant as intimated by letter dated 24.6.1996 which further required the complainant to deposit a demand draft for a sum of Rs.4,16,823/- in favour of Delhi Automobiles Limited payable at Delhi being the net amount payable after adjustment of the aforesaid booking amount. The complainant received Receipt-cum-Priority Card for Peugeot Car dated 10.7.1996 and thereafter he paid a sum of Rs.4,06,576/- vide draft dated 17.7.1996 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank duly acknowledged by Delhi Automobiles Ltd. , New Delhi and its office located in Industrial Area, Chandigarh vide Receipt No.020302. It has been alleged that the total price of the car was fixed at Rs.4,16,823/- vide Annexure 'b'. The complainant was informed vide letter from O. P. No.1 dated 11.6.1996 sent under U. P. C. that his turn to get the car was likely to mature by the second fortnight of July, 1996 vide Annexure 'e'.

(3.) The complainant went to O. P. No.4 - M/s. Amardeep Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. , 25/9, Phase II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh for delivery of his car when the O. P. No.4 expressed its inability to deliver the car. The complainant sent two letters dated 10.7.1997 (vide Annexures F-1 and F-2 ). Copy of Annexure F-1 was sent to O. P. No.2 - Delhi Automobiles Ltd. , Delhi and copy of F-2 was forwarded to O. P. No.1 - M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. but the complainant did not receive any reply from the O. Ps. The complainant served a legal notice dated 13.10.1997 through his Counsel Mr. Pawan K. Sharma, Advocate on O. P. Nos.1 to 3 under Registered/a. D. Post. The legal notice was duly served on O. P. Nos.1 to 3 inasmuch as the acknowledgement due cards were received back which are Annexures J-1 to J-3. The O. Ps. aforesaid had failed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant. The aforesaid act/conduct of the O. Ps. amounted to deficiency in service on their part. It has been contended that now after seven years of the booking of the car, the complainant is not interested in the delivery of the car. The complaint had initially been filed before the District Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh which had decided the complaint case and appeal against the same was filed before this State Commission which was decided on 16.12.2001. In appeal, it was held that the District Forum-I had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint which involved reliefs valued at more than Rs.5 lacs. The complaint was directed to be returned to the complainant for presentation before the competent Forum. Thereafter, the complaint was filed before this State Commission. The complainant impleaded four O. Ps. i. e. M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. , Dombivil, District Thane, Maharashtra; Delhi Automobiles Ltd. , New Delhi; Delhi Automobiles, Chandigarh and M/s. Amardeep Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. , Chandigarh. Subsequently, the complainant filed amended complaint on 22.2.2002.