Brief facts of the case are that on 16-3-10, the petitioner approached respondent No.1, an authorized dealer of respondent No.2, for purchase of Honda car. The staff members of respondent No.1 informed him (petitioner) that he shall have to deposit whole of sale price for purchase of VTI Oriel Prosmetic (Reborn) model 2010 Honda car which would be delivered to the petitioner after a period of 45 days and in case the petitioner intended to purchase Honda car, the same would be delivered, as per petitioner's choice about colour, within 3 days on deposit of whole of sale price.
After negotiating with respondents, the petitioner chose to purchase Honda City car model 2010 valuing Rs.12,30,000/-. The petitioner also deposited whole of the sale price against proper receipt, date of delivery of car being 19-3-10. On 19-3-10, when the petitioner visited respondent's Car Showroom, he was asked to wait for 22-3-10. Then on the given date, petitioner was again put off saying that delivery of car is late for one or two days but the car was still not delivered. Instead, respondent asked the petitioner to accept change in colour of car from white to black which the petitioner had to accept but despite petitioner's choice about change in the colour of car, the respondent ultimately came out with the demand to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- own-money.
Thus, the respondent failed to provide proper service to the petitioner. They also refused to redress petitioner's grievance despite his petitioner's personal demands as well as his approaching the respondent through business elite. Hence, this petition for grant of suit damages of Rs.5,50,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.50,00/-.
2. Petition was contested by the respondents on law and facts.
3. The petitioner appeared as PW-1 and also placed on record his sworn affidavit Ex-P-1, copies of legal notice Ex-P-2, courier receipts Ex-P-3 & 4 and copy of receipt Mark `P/A'. In rebuttal, respondent's representative, Mushtaq Hussain appeared as DW-1 and also produced his sworn affidavit Ex-D-1, booking receipt Ex-D-2, relationship contract Ex-D-3, receipt Ex-D-4, delivery checklist Ex-D-5, letter Ex-D-6, sale invoice-cum-advance tax receipts Mark `D/A' & Mark `D/B' and receipt Mark `D/A'.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Perusal of parties' evidence and other record on case file would show that booking of suit car, payment of (Rs.12,3000/-) as price and delivery of (vehicle) documents are the points which are admitted between the parties. Petitioner's only grievance is that on payment of whole of sale price of Honda City car, respondents failed to deliver him vehicle after 3 days time on the plea that difference between sale price of car and its delivery at the time of booking i.e. Rs.20,000/- was not paid by the petitioner. On the other hand, respondent's Sales Executive, Mushtaq Hussain (DW1) however, claimed (i) that original receipt (Mark "P/A") is fake / forged which was not issued by the respondents, (ii) that they never demanded "own money" of Rs.20,000/- from petitioner and (iii) that they did not promise to deliver the car after 3 days but after 45 days. However, respondents admitted (i) that they did not hand over vehicle documents to the petitioner and deposited the same with court to be received by the petitioner, (ii) that they delivered the suit car to petitioner on 17-5-10 which too was late by more than 16/17 days as against stipulated period of 45 days, (iii) that sale invoice is must for registration of vehicle and for want of such invoice, the petitioner had to suffer, (iv) that they never offered the petitioner to receive documents of vehicle and also that they had only verbally apprised the petitioner about enhancement of sale price by Rs.20,000/- due to price hike. All this leads us to conclude that the respondents did not offer proper service to the petitioner; therefore, they should compensate him.
6. For what has been discussed above, petitioner's claim is accepted and respondents are directed to compensate petitioner's loss since the respondents failed to deliver him suit car as promised as a result of which the petitioner admittedly suffered a lot. As regards quantum of compensation / damages, the petitioner has claimed damages of Rs.5, 00,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.50, 000/- but such claim seems exaggerated. The petitioner is, however, found entitled to receive Rs.40, 000/- as compensation / damages for suffering physical and mental discomfort and Rs.15, 000/- as legal expenses. As regards petitioner?s remaining claim, the same is hereby dismissed as well as relief about delivery of suit car already received by the petitioner. The petitioner may, however, withdraw deposit of Rs.20, 000/- wrongly claimed from him as own money. After completion, file be consigned to record room.