Car Dealer's Failure To Refund Booking Advance After Indefinite Delay In Delivery Is Unfair Trade Practice: Kerala Consumer Commission
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, in a recent order, awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to a consumer, whose booking advance was retained by a car dealer even after he cancelled the booking.The Bench of D.B. Binu, V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. also asked the dealer to refund the advance of Rs. 21,000/- paid by the consumer at the time of booking along...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, in a recent order, awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to a consumer, whose booking advance was retained by a car dealer even after he cancelled the booking.
The Bench of D.B. Binu, V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. also asked the dealer to refund the advance of Rs. 21,000/- paid by the consumer at the time of booking along with interest.
The complainant had booked a Mahindra Thar SUV from the opposite party car dealer by paying the afore booking amount. When the complainant came to know that there would be indefinite delay in delivering the vehicle due to some internal issues of the car dealer, he cancelled the booking and requested refund of the advance amount. He then purchased the same model car from another dealer.
Though the complainant made several requests for refunding the advance, the same was not acceded to. Later, he came to know that the car dealer's office in the district was closed down. He then came before the Consumer Commission for redressal and claimed refund of advance along with compensation and costs.
Since the opposite party car dealer chose not to appear before the Commission even after notice was service, it was set ex parte. The complainant brought in as evidence the copies of the bank transaction of the payment of the booking amount and the letter sent to the opposite party seeking refund.
Looking at the evidence produced and the unrebutted version of the complainant, the Commission opined that the opposite party retained the booking advance without any reason and this amount to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
“In the present case, the Opposite Party has not only failed to deliver the vehicle within a reasonable time but also refused/omitted to refund the booking advance after cancellation. No explanation is forthcoming as to how they can lawfully retain the amount. Such conduct is squarely covered by the aforesaid principles and clearly amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice… Once it is found that the Opposite Party has retained the booking amount without either supplying the vehicle or refunding the amount upon cancellation, the complainant is entitled to be restored, as far as money can do it, to the position he would have been in had the Opposite Party acted lawfully, in line with the principle of restitutio in integrum.,” the Bench observed, ordering refund of booking amount.
Finding that the action of the opposite party in unjustly retaining the complainant's money caused him mental agony and forced him to pursue avoidable litigation, the Commission felt it to award him compensation and costs of the proceedings.
Case No: CC. No. 943 of 2023
Case Title: Noble Mathew v. M/s Pothen Autos
Counsel for the complainant: Tom Joseph