Date of filing:-18/07/2017.
Date of Order:-24/09/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 32 of 2017.
Muralidhar Meher, S/o Shankar Meher, aged about R/o. Jondol, P.o/P.s/Tahssil-Bheden, Dist-Baargarh ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Vrs
The Proprietor Maa Laxmi Automobiles, Sadheipali, Mission road, Sundargarh, Dist –Sundargarh.
Rabi Juadi, Shree Sai Motors, Bheden S/o. Late Sundar Juadi, R/o. Juaditikra, Thuapali, Po. Bhoipali, Ps/Tahasil. Bheden, Dist:- Bargarh
..... ...... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.K.Satpathy, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri P.K.Hati, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri P.K.Sahu, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.24/09/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the case ;-
The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased one Motorcycle by the Model Honda Livo Brand from the Opposite Party No.2(two), as he being one of the Authorised out –let of Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.01.02.2016 bearing Chessis No-ME 4JC7C711JFT015671 & Engine No-JC71ET0025115 against payment of Rs.61,650/-(Rupees sixty one thousand six hundred fifty)only in total for the vehicle including registration and insurance for the same which has been acknowledged by the Opposite Parties through electronic receipt of the same.
His further case is that due to the receipt of the amount for the aforesaid purpose the Opposite Parties are duty bound to insure & make registration of the said vehicle and should have issued him with those certificate but they have avoided him with different pretext time to time even if his several approach, till yet they have neither done their such duty nor have handed over him with those certificate for which the very purpose of the Complainant for using the same has been frustrated and he is not being able to ply with same due to want of the same, which as per him amounts to deficiencies in rendering him with their service which also amounts to unfair trade practice on their part for which both of them are liable jointly and severally in causing him with mental agony and physical harassment, and financial loss, for which he has filed the case claiming the registration and insuring the same and also has claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only as compensation, claiming the date of the cause of action for their such deed on Dt.01.02.2015 when he purchased the said vehicle and on Dt.02.06.2017 when he served them with a pleader notice. And in support of his such claim has relied on some documents:-
The Copy of the receipt Dt.01.02.2016.
The copy of the pleader Notice and the postal receipt.
Having gone through the Complaint the documents and on hearing the counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted and Notice was served on both of the Opposite Parties and in response, both of them appeared and filed their respective version separately, wherein the Opposite Party No.1(one) has denied that the Opposite Party No.2(two) is not his out-let point, and also has denied to the allegation of the Complainant to have paid the fees for the Insurance and for registration of the said vehicle while admitting that the Complainant has purchased the same by paying only the sell price amounting to Rs.57,184/-(Rupees fifty seven thousand one hundred eighty four)only of the Vehicle only as such has claimed the case to be dismissed against him.
And so far as the version of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is concerned he has totally denied to have sold any such vehicle to the Complainant and at the same time has also denied the case of the Complainant in total with a claim to dismiss the case against him stating therein that he is not aware of the allegation made against him.
On perusal of the Complaint, the documents and versions of the respective Opposite Parties some points for determination the case the has come up as follows.
Whether there is deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to his claim ?
On perusal of the complaint, the documents filed by the parties and the evidence in support of their case filed by both the Parties and hearing of their respective learned counsels, it apparently clear that the Complainant has purchased the said vehicle from the Opposite Party No.2(two), against which he has issued a money receipt for an amount of Rs.61,654/-(Rupees sixty one thousand six hundred fifty four)only vide Sl. No-1207 Dt.01.02.2016 and in addition to that it is also clearly reveals that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has issued a retail Invoice for an amount of Rs.57,184/-(Rupees fifty seven thousand one hundred eighty four)only which indicates that the sale has been made from the shop of the Opposite Party No.2(two), and the same has been authenticated by the Opposite Party No.1(one) since it has issued it sale Invoice against the same, And also it is clearly visible from the Money receipt of the Opposite Party No.2(two) that an extra amount of Rs.4,470/-(Rupees four thousand four hundred seventy)only has been received by him and from such situation it can be safely deducted that the Opposite Party No.2(two) has been carrying on his retail business, from such observation it can be safely presumed that both the Opposite Parties are having a collaborated business relationship among them, but in view of the Money Receipt issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two) for an extra amount of Rs.4,470/-(Rupees four thousand four hundred seventy)only has been received by him beside the actual sale price as per the sale invoice issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one), which makes clear with regard to the claim of the Complainant that an extra amount of money has been received by the Opposite Party No.2(two) to register in the R.T.A Bargarh and to insure the same, And the said vehicle has not yet been registered nor insured as has been claimed by the Complainant is found to be true, which amounts to a fit case of unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2(two), hence our answer to the point No.1(one) is assertive to the case of the Complainant.
And as the said alleged amount other than the sell price amounting to Rs.4,470/-(Rupees four thousand four hundred seventy)only has been received by the Opposite Party No.2(two) vide it’s Money Receipt vide Sl.No.1207 on Dt.01.02.2016 in it’s individual capacity. So it is his sole responsibility to get it insured and registered in the office of the R.T.A. to which he has not complied with nor has explained as to why he has received the said extra amount as such is liable to the punitive measure as envisaged in the Provision of the Act. And the Opposite Party No.1(one) is exonerated from any such action as there is no evidence against him to that effect to implicate him.
Secondly with regard to the claim of the Complainant, since it has been clearly proved to be a deficient acts on the part of the Opposite Party No.2(two) as has claimed by the Complainant and to that effect we have already discussed in details in our foregoing paragraphs and have also opined in favor of the Complainant for which the Opposite Party No.2(two) is liable. Now it is obvious upon us to express our consensus view in favor of him as such our order follows .
-: O R D E R :-
Hence the Opposite Party No.2(two), is directed to get the Vehicle Register in the office of the R.T.A. Bargarh and get it insured and hand over the Paper of the same to the Complainant and also is directed to pay him an amount of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only in lieu of compensation for the mental and financial loss under taken by him with an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only against litigation expenses, within thirty days from the receipt of the Order, in default of which the Opposite Party No.2(two) would be liable to the punitive measure as envisaged under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and since there is no material against the Opposite Party No.1(one) as has been discussed earlier, the case against him is dismissed and is exonerated from any action .
Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum and disposed off to-day i.e.on Dt.24/09/2018, in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.2(two).
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
