REGENT AUTOMOBILES Vs. EURO ENTERPRISES AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned. This First Appeal, under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), has been filed by Regent Automobiles Opposite Party No. 1 in the Complaint and an authorised dealer in vehicles manufactured by General Motors (India) P. Ltd., Respondent No. 2 in this Appeal, against the order dated 5.2.2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short 'the State Commission'), in Complaint Case No. C-375 of 2001. By the impugned order, while accepting the Complaint preferred by Respondent No. 1, the Complainant, the Star Commission has directed the Appellant to refund to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 6,45,478, being the cost of the vehicle, on Complainant's furnishing all the requisite documents and completing the formalities for transfer of the same, either in the name of the Appellant or Respondent No. 2, besides Rs. 10,000 as compensation as well as cost of litigation.

(2.) Succinctly put, the facts, giving rise to the present Appeal, as culled out from the Complaint, are that on 7.9.2000, the Complainant booked an OPELCORSA 14 GLS CASSABLANCA WHITE CAR with the Appellant by making a payment of Rs. 6,45,478, by means of a cheque. At the time of booking of the vehicle, the Complainant was informed that the vehicle was not readily available and would be delivered within a fortnight. However the relevant documents relating to the purchase and registration were got signed from the Complainant. On 30.9.2000, the Appellant informed the Complainant that the vehicle was ready for delivery. However, on 1.10.2000, when the Complainant went to take delivery of the vehicle, he noticed numerous pinholes on the roof top; scratches all over the body; a big dent on the left rear side of the car; rust on all the ungalvanised parts, including Battery Stand, brittleness in the rubber parts attached to the bonnet to the extent that these were coming out on being touched. The defects were immediately brought to the notice of the Representative of the Appellant, who marked the same with a marker. The Complainant refused to take delivery of the vehicle, upon which the Representative of the Appellant assured him that he would take up the matter with higher authorities. Subsequently, the Complainant faxed the above mentioned facts to both the Opposite Parties. After 2-3 days, when there was no response form the Opposite Parties, on 4.10.2000, the Complainant again visited the show room of the Appellant and learnt that the vehicle in dispute had already been got registered in his name. He was told that his request for replacement of the car could not be accepted. The vehicle could only be repaired. Some additional accessories were also offered as compensation for the said alleged shortcomings, which the Complainant declined and refused to take delivery of the vehicle.

(3.) Being in a state of stalemate and not expecting positive response to his demand for delivery of a new defect-free vehicle despite legal notice, the Complainant filed the afore-noted Complaint before the State Commission. It was alleged that there was gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the Opposite Parties in retaining the sale consideration from 7.9.2000 and not delivering the vehicle booked or refunding the amount. The Complainant prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the said sum of Rs. 6,45,478, being the entire sale consideration of the Opel Car booked, with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of actual payment till refund, along with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 towards damages, loss of reputation and injury.