State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lux Industries Ltd. vs Benchmark Cars on 13 August, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/24/2014 ( Date of Filing : 31 Jan 2014 ) 1. Lux Industries Ltd. 39, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, P.S. Posta, Kolkata - 700 007 & also at Srijan Tech Park, DN-52, G.P. Block, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700 091. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Benchmark Cars Dealer of Mercedes-Benz, 31, Dr. Ambedkar Sarani, Topsia, Kolkata - 700 046. 2. Landmark Cars (East) Pvt. Ltd. 31, Dr. Ambedkar Sarani, Topsia, Kolkata - 700 046. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr. Rahul Agarwal. Ms. Soni Ojha. , Advocate For the Opp. Party: Mr. Supratick Basu., Advocate Mr. Basanta Kumar Sen, Advocate Dated : 13 Aug 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This complaint case is filed by M/s Lux Industries Ltd. against M/s Benchmark Cars and Anr. alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
In short, case of the Complainant is that, it purchased two nos. Mercedes-Benz Car with GPS Navigation feature with the OP No. 1 at a cost of Rs. 86,41,886/- each. However, after getting delivery of the same, it observed that the said car did not have the same features (absence of GPS Navigation feature) as were shown to it by the OP No. 1. It is alleged that although the OPs assured it to rectify the error, but, nothing positive was done to redress the grievance of the Complainant. Therefore, the complaint was filed.
Notice was duly served upon both the OPs. However, only the OP No. 2 filed WV wherein it stated that at that relevant point of time, the concerned model purchased by the Complainant did not have GPS Navigation feature. Neither the manufacturer nor the dealers ever stated/advertised anywhere nor even in the sale contract of cars with the Complainant nor in the proforma invoice raised on the Complainant there was any mention of such feature.
Points for consideration Whether the complaint case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief?
Decision with reasons Point No. 1:
Admittedly, ex-show room price of the disputed car bearing registration no. WB-02AC/6021 was Rs. 76,80,958/-. Together with this, if we add the various reliefs sought for by the Complainant, viz., pendent lite interest @ 12% over Rs. 76,80,958/- till the date of actual repayment to the Complainant, refund of Rs. 9,60,928/- being the amount paid towards entry tax, insurance, road tax and registration charges, compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Advocate's fees and legal expenses, it appears that the aggregate figure of above relief in monetary terms exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, the instant complaint is not maintainable here.
Point Nos. 2&3:
The complaint case being not maintainable in this Commission, we are not inclined to deliberate on these aspects.
The complaint case, accordingly, fails.
Hence, O R D E R E D The complaint stands dismissed against the OPs being barred by limitation. Complainant, however, shall be at liberty to agitate its case before the appropriate Court of Law. In this regard, it may claim the benefit of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in pursuing the complaint case before this Commission while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a case [Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 (3) SCC 583 relied upon]. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER