Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

J.K. Bansal vs P.S. Cars Pvt. Ltd on 6 February, 2006

  
 
 
 
 
 
 IN THE STATE COMMISSION  : DELHI





 

 



 IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI 

 

(Constituted under Section 9 clause
(b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) 

   

  Date of Decision: 6th February 2006   

 

   

 

 Appeal No.
A-2074/2001 

 

   

 

   

 

(Arising from the order dated 18-09-2001 passed by
District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi in
Complaint Case No. 376/2000) 

 

  

 

  

 

Shri J.K. Bansal  Appellant 

 

R/o
Set No.1, Oak Lodge Annexure,  Through

 

Near Vidhan Sabha,  Ms. Meena Sharma,

 

Shimla
(HP). Advocate.

 Versus

 

  

 P.S.
Cars Pvt. Ltd. Respondents

 

Showroom
21, UA, Through

 

Bunglow
Road, Jawahar Ngar, Mr.
Sanjay Jain,

 

Delhi.  Advocate.

 

  

 

Managing
Director,

 

Daewoo
Motors India Ltd.,

 

33,
Siri Fort Road,

 

New
Delhi.

 

  

 

Tayal
Electronics,

 

C-11/20,
Model Town,

 

Delhi.

 

  

 

CORAM : 

  Justice
J.D. Kapoor- President

 

 Mr.
Mahesh Chandra- Member 

1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?

       

JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL)   On taking delivery of vehicle of Matiz brand DD Model for a price of Rs. 2,93,000/- out of which 1,50,000/- was towards marginal money and the remaining was financed by the appellant, it was found that the vehicle had been driven by somebody few days before the delivery and after one day broke down and till date it is lying unused as respondent refused change the vehicle or refund the cost thereof.

2. Vide impugned order dated 18th September 2001 the following directions have been given to the respondents :-

OP No.1 is directed to refund to the complainant Rs. 1,435/-, out of the amount of Rs. 5,600/- charged from the complainant after deducting Rs. 2,00/- for number plate and Registration charges of Rs. 3,965/- with 10% interest from the date of payment till the date of refund. OP is further directed to pay 10% interest to the complainant on the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- deposited on 6-2-2000 till the date of delivery i.e. on 13-2-2000 as OP No.1 was responsible for delay in the delivery of the car which was delivered by the OP No.2 to the dealer on 28-1-2000. This is in addition to the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.
The above order should be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which action u/s 27 of the C.P. Act 1986 will be taken against the respondents.

3. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the appellant has directed this appeal.

4. Car was booked on 31-12-1999 with the assurance that delivery will be made within 3-4 days whereas it was delivered only on 13-02-2000. The speedo-meter shows meter reading 160 K.M. while the warranty registration slip showed mileage of 58 Kms. After one week the vehicle broke down. The appellants brother who was driving somehow managed to bring the vehicle to his residence and help line did not attend the complaint and the next date respondent No.1 sent some mechanic who could neither rectify the defect nor could tow away the vehicle to the workshop. It was at that time that the appellant laid hand upon a slip showing that the vehicle was delivered to one Rahul Tayal of Tayal electronics before being delivered it to the appellant.

5. The very fact that the vehicle showed meter reading of 160 Kms coupled with the appellant laid hand upon a slip shows that some unfair practice by the respondent though it was not a second hand vehicle and driven by somebody else, a known friend or a known person of the respondent few days upto 160 Kms. However, the fact that the vehicle has remained unutilised with the appellant for such a long time no useful purpose will be served by directing the respondent to replace the car by a new car immediately after filing of this complaint, we deem that refund of the cost of the car amounting to Rs. 2,83,000/- with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. On receipt of the above amount the car will be returned to the respondent.

6. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

8. Announced on the 6th day of February 2006.

   

(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President     (Mahesh Chandra) Member jj