M/S. TRICITY AUTOS Vs. SUBHASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 02.05.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 1292/2012, "Tricity Auto & Ors. Vs. Subash Chand", vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 06.09.2012, passed by the District Forum Mohali, allowing the consumer complaint No. 219/2012, filed by the present respondent/complainant, was upheld.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Subhash Chand filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that he booked a new Maruti Suzuki Swift Dezire Car with the petitioner dealer Tricity Autos by making a payment of 50,000.00, as earnest money, although, the usual payment for booking amount was 10,000.00. The complainant made this booking on 02.02.2012 and deposited the excess amount, as he required the said car within a short time. On 28.04.2012, the OPs asked the complainant to deposit the entire remaining amount of the car, so that the delivery of the car could be given to him. The complainant deposited a sum of 1 lakh in cash vide receipt No. CB794 dated 28.04.2012 and also made payment of 6 lakhs by means of Bank draft from the United Bank of India vide receipt No. CB864 dated 30.04.2012. In this way, the complainant made payment of 7,50,000.00 in total by 30.04.2012, but despite visiting the OPs time and again, the vehicle was not delivered to him on 30.04.2012. The complainant again visited the show-room of the OP on 2.05.2012, but the car was not delivered to him. On 14.05.2012, he visited the show-room again with his friends, but the OP used abusive language against them and refused to give the delivery of the car and stated that the amount deposited will be returned to him. Alleging harassment against him, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP to pay 14 lakh as compensation and 22,000.00 as litigation cost.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP dealer by saying that a sum of 7,49,400.00 had already been refunded to the complainant on 05.06.2012 vide cheques drawn on ING Vysay Bank Limited and hence, the complaint was not maintainable. It is further stated that the complainant had created nuisance in their show-room. It is stated that the complainant first booked a car of blue colour with the OP, but later on changed to white colour as per letter dated 04.02.2012.