DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _101_ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING : 03.08.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _25.6.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sri Gour Hari Maity, son of late Ram Narayan Maity of Village Uttar Kalikapur, Dakshin Barast, P.S Joynagar, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743372.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Authorised Representative Tata Motors Limited, Bombay House, 24, Hori Mody Street, Fort Mumbai-400001.
2. The Authorised Representative M/s Lexus Motors Ltd. 209, A.J.C Bose Road, Kolkata – 17, P.S Karea.
3. Authorised Representatives, M/s Lexus Motors Ltd. Kulpi Road, Sibanipith, Baruipur, South 24-Parganas, Pin-700 144, P.S Baruipur.
4. Motor Vehicles Department, Howrah , West Bengal.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint are that the complainant purchased one Light goods vehicle from the O.P-3 on payment of Rs.7,90,000/- . O.P-1 is the manufacturing company and O.P nos. 2 and 3 are the authorized dealers of the said company. One Temporary Certificate of Registration was also issued by Motor Vehicle Department, Howrah and the same was delivered to the complainant by O.P-2. But, this temporary registration certificate was defective and, therefore, the complainant could not get permanent registration certificate for his vehicle. Request for rectification of temporary registration certificate fell in deaf ear of O.P nos. 2 and 3. The complainant could not run the vehicle for want of permanent registration certificate and sustained huge loss as the vehicle was kept in idle condition. Now, by filing the instant case, the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.10,20,000/- or removal of defect in temporary certificate of registration (TCR) and for payment of compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.P-1 i.e the manufacturing company has been contesting the case by filing written statement, wherein it is contended inter alia that the vehicle was sold to O.P nos. 2 and 3 by him on principal to principal basis and, therefore, the manufacturing company i.e the O.P-1 is not liable for any deficiency in service or defect in goods. The complainant is a business man and, therefore, he is not a consumer and that is why the instant case is not maintainable in Law. The further case of O.P-1 is that the mistake was committed in Temporary Certificate of Registration by R.T.O, Lucknow and it was mistakenly written that permanent registration certificate could be available at Public Vehicles Department (PVD) , Calcutta instead of R.T.O, Baruipur, South 24-Parganas. It was a bonafide mistake on the part of the Motor Vehicles Department of Lucknow and there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P-1.
O.P.nos. 2 and 3 have also been contesting the case by filing written statement ,wherein it is contended by them that the RTO, Lucknow committed a technical mistake while issuing temporary registration certificate (TCR). However, they asked the complainant to produce his vehicle before the RTO, Baruipur, giving commitment to bear all charges and expenses required for registration vide their letter dated 20.9.2017 . But complainant did not obey the terms of their letter and ,therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and that the complaint should, therefore, be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form?
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Complainant and O.P-1 have led their Evidences on affidavit which are kept in the record for consideration. The written statement filed by O.P nos. 2 and 3 is treated as their evidence vide their petition dated 26.2.2018. Questionnaires, replies etc. filed by the parties are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 :
It has been arguedon behalf of the O.Ps that the complainant is not a consumer as he purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose. It is further argued on behalf of them that the complainant has nowhere stated in his complaint that the vehicle was purchased by him for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. So, according to them, the complainant is not a consumer and ,therefore, the instant complaint is not maintainable in Law.
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has no other business and that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for earning his livelihood and that all these have been stated by him in paragraph 14 of the complaint. Therefore, according to him the complaint is maintainable in law.
A complaint under section 12 , C.P Act, 1086 is maintainable only when the complainant is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2 (1)(d) of the C.P Act, 1986 . It stands established herein that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for running transport business. In the circumstances, the complainant will have to prove that the vehicle was purchased by him exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment. A perusal of para 14 of the complaint reveals that there is no whisper as to whether the vehicle was purchased for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment. It has only been stated therein that the complainant has no other source of income to maintain himself and his family and that the vehicle is purchased to maintain the livelihood of him and his family. From this averment of the complainant, it is not clear as to whether the complainant owns any other business or not or whether he wants to conduct the transport business by way of self employment. If it so transpires that the complainant has other business except the transport business sought to be started by him the complainant will not be regarded as a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act, 1986. An affidavit is attached to the complaint filed by the complainant. In that affidavit, the complainant has stated on oath that his occupation is business. By this very statement of the complainant, it stands proved that the complainant has a running business except the business sought to be started by him. Had he not been owner of any existing business, he could not have described his occupation in the affidavit as “Business”. Regards being had to this very averment of the complainant as transpiring in his own affidavit appended to the complainant we feel inclined to hold that the complainant has other business ,that he is a business man and that he has wanted to purchase the subject vehicle for the purpose of starting a new business. He is, therefore, not a “Consumer” and the instant case is, therefore, not maintainable in Law.
Point no.1 is thus answered primarily against the complainant.
Point no.2 & 3 :
Now to see whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant. It is the allegation of the complainant that the temporary registration certificate which was issued by the O.Ps , was defective and, therefore, he could not get the permanent registration certificate of his vehicle and that there was a mistake in temporary registration certificate which is admitted by the O.Ps. According to the O.Ps, the temporary registration certificate which was delivered to the complainant at the time of sale of the vehicle was issued on the basis of TRC of RTO, Lucknow and that the RTO , Lucknow has mistakenly described thereon that the permanent registration certificate would be available by the complainant from PVD, Kolkata. Due to this mistake, the complainant could notget the permanent registration certificate from RTO, Baruipur, South 24-Parganas.
So, now to see whether this mistake which has been committed by the RTO, Lucknow in Temporary Registration Certificate (TCR) will be treated as a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Here is a letter produced by the O.Ps and this letter is dated 20.9.2017. By this letter, the O.Ps asked the complainant to produce his vehicle before the RTO, Baruipur and they also gave commitment that they would bear all the charges and expenses necessary for registration of the vehicleof the complainant before the said RTO. That apart, the permanent registration certificate has been obtained by the O.Ps on6.2.2018 and the same has also been produced before the Forum by them. ON perusal of the record it is found that the O.Ps have also taken step for rectification of the mistake committed in temporary registration certificate. A mistake committed by a person cannot be said to be deficiency in service committed by another person. With this view of ours, we feel no hesitation to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
The complainant has claimed for loss sustained by him due to the fact that he could not use the vehicle for 11 months for want of valid registration certificate. The complainant will have to prove that he has actually sustained loss. He has not been able to discharge the burden of proof. He could not produce before the Forum the reading of Audiometer and from this reading it would have been clear whether the vehicle was at all driven by the complainant or not. In absence of such a document it cannot be said that the complainant did not at all run the vehicle. So, regards being had to all this aspect, we do say that the complainant is not entitled to compensation for loss as allegedly sustained by him.
In the result , the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps ,but without any cost.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
