Complaint No. C-228/2002. Case: Sh. Gaurav Gupta Vs 1. M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd., 2. M/s Vikas Motors Ltd.. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberComplaint No. C-228/2002
JudgesBarkat Ali Zaidi, President and Kanwal Inder, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 11
Judgement DateNovember 29, 2011
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Kanwal Inder, Member, (At New Delhi)

  1. This Complaint under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed on 7.8.2002 seeking Rs.14,72,000/- with interest and costs Rs.25,000/- from the OPs.

  2. The prayer has been made on the allegations that on 16.1.2002 the complainant applied for/booked two `Baleno" cars with catalyser with the Opposite Party No.2 and paid a sum of Rs.6 lakhs for each car totaling a sum of Rs.12 lakh vide two cheques bearing Nos. 856963 and 856964 both dated 8.1.2002 for Rs.6 lakhs each. The Opposite Party No.2 being the authorized dealer of the OP No.1 issued two allotment Nos.002430 and 0024131 against the aforesaid bookings.

  3. The aforesaid payments were made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2 for and one behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 and the delivery of the aforesaid cars were to be given to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2

  4. The Opposite Party No.1 had represented to the Complainant that it would take about 6 to 8 weeks for the aforesaid cars to be made available for delivery to the Complainant. When the complement did not hear anything from OPs with respect to delivery of cars, he vide letter dated 31.3.2002 requested the OP No.2 to cancel the booking and to refund the booking amount with interest. When the OP No.2 failed, refused and neglected to refund, the complainant wrote letters dated 18.4.2002 and 10.5.2002 to the OPs to refund the amount with interest but they failed to do so. The complainant sent legal notice dated 3.6.2002 to which the OP No.1 sent evasive reply dated 15.6.2002. There is deficiency in service by the OPs br not delivering the vehicles and by not refunding Rs.12 lakhs on which Rs.72,000/- has become due as interest till 29.7.2002. The complainant has suffered tension, mental agony & trauma for which the OPs are liable to pay Rs.2 lakhs as damages. Hence the prayer.

  5. The respondent No.2 M/s Vikas Motors Ltd. did not appear despite notice. The case is being contested by the respondent No.1 M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd., who has filed written statement denying claim and contentions of the complainant and has pleaded that there is no privitiy of contract between respondent No.1 and the complainant. The complainant neither paid any amount to the respondent No.1 for booking of alleged vehicle nor entered into a contract for sale of vehicles for consideration. The transaction between complainant and respondent No.2 is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT