RUPINDER SINGH S/O. DHAN DEV SINGH, R/O. HOUSE NO. 2710 Vs. CHITTOSHO MOTORS & ANR. THROURGH ITS INCHARGE/PROP./MD, C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant booked a Maruti Swift Car with respondent No.1 Chittosho Motors, on 16.8.2011 paying an advance of Rs.10,000.00 for the purpose. He was given tentative waiting period of 4 - 5 months for the delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle, however, was not delivered to him within that much period. When he took up the matter with the OP No.1, he was informed vide letter dated 31.3.2012 that the waiting period given to him was approximately 4 - 5 months and because of huge bookings, the delivery of the vehicle was delayed. He was further informed that at that time they were delivering the vehicles booked in June and therefore, delivery of his vehicle would take time. According to the complainant, after waiting for the vehicle for one year, he cancelled the booking in Aug., 2012. Thereafter the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking compensation on account of the failure of the OPs to deliver the vehicle within the period of 4 - 5 months from the date of booking.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties. OP No.2 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. took the stand that the complainant was not its consumer, the booking having been made with OP No.1 Chittosho Motors. M/s Chittosho Motors resisted the complaint on the ground that due to heavy booking and unforeseen strike in the plant of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., there was delay in delivery of the vehicle. It was also pointed out in the reply filed by the said OP that the complainant could have cancelled the booing whenever he so wanted.

(3.) The District Forum vide its order dated 1.3.2013 dismissed the complaint against OP No.2 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. but allowed the same against OP No.1. Being aggrieved, the OP No.1 approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint. The appellant, however, was directed to refund the booking amount deposited by the complainant. Being dissatisfied, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.