VAIBHAV JAIN Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH SIDDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in challenge to the Order dtd. 18/10/2017 of the State Commission in complaint no. 58 of 2017, whereby the complaint was partly allowed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant / opposite party and the learned counsel for the complainant / respondent and perused the record including the State Commission's impugned Order dtd. 18/10/2017 and the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that on 18/2/2016 the complainant had booked a car, namely, Fortuner White Colour Top Model, and deposited a sum of Rs.25.00 lakh towards the cost of the car with the opposite party, who was a Director of the firm VICON Toyota (car) and the Showroom of the opposite party. It is alleged that the opposite party assured the complainant that the car will be delivered to the complainant within two months but the car was not delivered even within one year from the date of booking. It is further alleged that the opposite party also did not refund the amount deposited by the complainant. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant / respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission.