RUPINDER SINGH vs CHITTOSHO MOTORS & ANR.

The complainant booked a Maruti Swift Car with respondent No.1 Chittosho Motors, on 16.8.2011 paying an advance of Rs.10,000/- for the purpose. He was given tentative waiting period of 4-5 months for the delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle, however, was not delivered to him within that much period. When he took up the matter with the OP No.1, he was informed vide letter dated 31.3.2012 that the waiting period given to him was approximately 4-5 months and because of huge bookings, the delivery of the vehicle was delayed. He was further informed that at that time they were delivering the vehicles booked in June and therefore, delivery of his vehicle would take time. According to the complainant, after waiting for the vehicle for one year, he cancelled the booking in August, 2012. Thereafter the complainant approached the concerned

District Forum by way of a complaint seeking compensation on account of the failure of the OPs to deliver the vehicle within the period of 4-5 months from the date of booking.

The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties. OP No.2 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. took the stand that the complainant was not its consumer, the booking having been made with OP No.1 Chittosho Motors. M/s Chittosho Motors resisted the complaint on the ground that due to heavy booking and unforeseen strike in the plant of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., there was delay in delivery of the vehicle. It was also pointed out in the reply filed by the said OP that the complainant could have cancelled the booing whenever he so wanted.

The District Forum vide its order dated 1.3.2013 dismissed the complaint against OP No.2 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. but allowed the same against OP No.1. Being aggrieved, the OP No.1 approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint. The appellant, however, was directed to refund the booking amount deposited by the complainant. Being dissatisfied, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

A perusal of the booking made by the complainant would show that no confirmed date of delivery of the vehicle was given to him. He was given a tentative waiting period and a tentative delivery date. The complainant, therefore, cannot have a grievance on account of the inability of the respondent to deliver the vehicle within 4-5 months from the date of booking. Had the respondents given a confirmed date of delivery to the complainant only then he could have a grievance on account of late delivery of the vehicle. Moreover, the complainant if he did not want to wait after 4-5 months from the date of booking, could always have withdrawn the booking and sought refund of the amount deposited by him. But, it would be difficult to say that the respondents were guilty of deficiency in rendering services to the complainant by not delivering the vehicle to him within 4-5 months from the date of booking. Therefore, the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 4. Considering the view being taken by me, I may not go into the question as to whether the complainant merely on the basis of the booking made by him can be said to be a consumer of respondent No.1 within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.