West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/617/2014

Bibhas Chandra Ghosal, Father of Niloy Ghosal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Sri Samrat Nandi General Manager Transport Mohan Motor Udyog. Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. _617_ OF ___2014_____

 

DATE OF FILING : 23.12.2014_     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:_6.4.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :         Dr. (Mrs.)  Shibani Chakraborty

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Bibhas Chandra Ghoshal ( father of Niloy Ghoshal) of

                                               P-3, Nibedita Place, 247, Nashkarhat, Phoolbagan, Kolkata – 39.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                 :  Sri Samrat Nandi (General Manager Transport), Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd. 630, Uttar Panchanan Gram, P.S. Tiljala, Kolkata – 39.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President                                    

            It is the short case of the complainant that he purchased a Maruti Car in the name of his son for the purpose of using the same to the college and back to the residence, from O.P-1 Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd. on 20.9.2011 with an assurance by the O.P to complete the motor vehicle formalities for transfer of ownership in favour of Niloy Ghoshal within 90 days maximum but nothing has been done by the O.P-1 ,resulting deterioration of the vehicle as it was not roadworthy due to need of Motor Vehicle Documents. It may be further mentioned here that vehicle was booked on 9.9.2011 vide receipt no. 195 dated 9.9.2011 at a total cost of Rs.67000/-  including RTO formalities. Payment was made by cheque to the tune of Rs.10,000/- drawn on SBI Picnic Garden Branch, Kolkata and another cheque amounting to Rs.5,70,000/-  from the said Branch and the car was delivered on 20.9.2011 after encashment of the cheque. But inspite of that assurance and visited regularly O.P-1 did not vie any feedback of the said documents and thereby the vehicle is not updated by the vehicle department and and  vehicle lost its roadworthy condition which is very much unfair, for which, the O.P-1 acted deficiency in service. Hence, this case.

            The is not contesting the case inspite of serving summon upon the O.P.

            Points for decision is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P or not.

                                                                        Decision with reasons

            We have perused all the documents and complainant’s allegation and we find that inspite of assurance and mediation through Consumer Affairs Department, complainant did not get proper   redresal ,which is very much unhappy and unfairness from the side of the O.P and O.P after collecting all total cost of the vehicle including RTO amount did not take proper action years together which is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the application under Section  12 of the C.P Act is allowed exparte .

The O.P is directed to refund the amount to the tune of Rs.71,200/- within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which,  compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the O.P to the complainant.

If the O.P failed to comply the order in toto, then interest will carry @9% p.a till its realization on the total awarded amounts ,in default complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

Let a plain copy of this order be given to the complainants free of cost and send a copy of this order to the O.Ps through speed post for their strict compliance.

 

                                                                        Member                                               President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivery in open Forum. As it is 

 

Ordered

That the application under Section  12 of the C.P Act is allowed exparte .

The O.P is directed to refund the amount to the tune of Rs.71,200/- within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which,  compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the O.P to the complainant.

If the O.P failed to comply the order in toto, then interest will carry @9% p.a till its realization on the total awarded amounts ,in default complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

Let a plain copy of this order be given to the complainants free of cost and send a copy of this order to the O.Ps through speed post for their strict compliance.

 

                                                                        Member                                               President