Au­to­mo­bile firm to pay for not de­liv­er­ing car on re­quested date

Hindustan Times (Chandigarh) - Live - - IN & AROUND - HT Live Cor­re­spon­dent [email protected]­dus­tan­times.com

CHANDIGARH: The District Con­sumer Dis­putes Re­dres­sal Fo­rum has pe­nalised Auto Pace Net­work Lim­ited and or­dered it to pay Rs 25,000 as com­pen­sa­tion and Rs 5,000 as lit­i­ga­tion cost to the com­plainant, a res­i­dent of Sec­tor 22-A, Chandigarh.

The com­plainant, Surinder Sharma, stated that he had booked a Maruti Swift Car Vxi with Auto Pace Net­work Lim­ited by de­posit­ing Rs 50,000.

He men­tioned to the op­po­site par­ties that he would pre­fer to take the de­liv­ery of the ve­hi­cle on Novem­ber 4, 2010, on the aus­pi­cious oc­ca­sion of Dhanteras.

The op­po­site party as­sured the com­plainant that the car would be de­liv­ered on the pre­ferred date. The com­plainant ap­proached op­po­site party on Oc­to­ber 8, 2010, for in­voice, as he wanted to ap­ply for a bank loan.

The dealer is­sued the in­voice on Oc­to­ber 8, 2010, and again as­sured that the car would def­i­nitely be de­liv­ered on Novem­ber 4, 2010.

The com­plainant ap­plied for loan from State Bank of Pa­tiala and kept on in­quir­ing ev­ery now and then, re­gard­ing the de­liv­ery of the car from the dealer and each time, the same as­sur­ance was given to him.

The bank sanc­tioned a loan of Rs 2 lakh on Novem­ber 1, 2010, and the com­plainant de­posited a mar­ginal amount of Rs 1,54,616 in the car loan ac­count. The bank is­sued Rs 3,54,616 in favour of the op­po­site party and the com­plainant ap­proached the op­po­site party.

On Novem­ber 2, 2010, the sales mar­ket­ing team of Munish Sharma and Naval Arora were con­tacted, but they said the car de­sired by the com­plainant is not avail­able and he should con­tact gen­eral man­ager Vishal Jin­dal in this mat­ter.

Af­ter mak­ing him wait for nearly one-and-a-half-hour, Jin­dal de­clared that the car of the com­plainant has not come from the com­pany and fur­ther told the com­plainant that he should con­firm on tele­phone about its de­liv­ery. The com­plainant, on same evening sent an e-mail to the com­pany, as well as ap­proached the rest of the op­po­site party, but noth­ing was done.

The com­pany, in its re­ply, stated that the com­plainant has failed to set out spe­cific al­le­ga­tions against the an­swer­ing op­po­site par­ties in the present com­plaint and has no case for de­fi­ciency in ser­vice or un­fair trade prac­tice. Af­ter see­ing the ev­i­dence pro­vided by both the par­ties, the fo­rum pe­nalised Auto Pace Net­work Lim­ited and or­dered it to pay Rs 25,000 as com­pen­sa­tion and Rs 5,000 as lit­i­ga­tion cost.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.