PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                               CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 232/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Sri. Purandara Seth, aged about 24 years,

S/O-Ganjan Seth

R/O-Maltigunderpur, PO-Gunderpur, Ps-Dhama,

Dist-Sambalpur-768005, Odisha.                          …………………..Complainant

                             Vrs

1. Rahul Modak, aged about 25 years,

S/O-Durga Modak, Proprietor of Sri. Ganesh Automobiles,

At-Cuttack Road, Dhanupali Chowk, Sambalpur-768005.

2. The Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

C/O-Bajaj Auto Ltd, Old Pune-Mumbai Highway,

Akurdi, Pune-411035.                                …………………..Opp.Parties         

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant     :- Sri. M.K.Sandha & Associates
2. For the O.P.No.1             :- Sri. P.M.Dash & Associates
3. For the O.P.No.2             :- Sri. A.K.Sahu & Associates

Date of Filing:13.12.2023,  Date of Hearing :01.07.2024,  Date of Judgement :06.08.2024

Presented byDr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that Complainant purchased one Bajaj Pulsar NS 160 Twin dics motorcycle bearing Regd. No. OD-17S 6217 on auction from O.P.No.2 which was registered in the name of Sumanta Seth vide loan No. L2WBRG07691760. An agreement for sale was made between O.P.No.1 & Complainant on 28.06..2022 and the O.Ps fixed the price Rs. 60,000/-. Payment was made and vehicle delivered to Complainant. As per agreement the O.P.No.1 will provide NOC from O.P.No.2 within a period of 90 days, then the Complainant will transfer the ownership in his favour on his own cost.

The O.Ps when not transferred the ownership for more than one year a legal notice was sent to O.P. No.1 in September, 2023. The O.P.No.1 assured to transfer ownership within one month but failed to do so. Being aggrieved complainant was filed.

2. The O.P.No.1 in reply submitted that Motor-cycle No. OD-17S-6217 was purchased by O.P.No.1 in auction sale from O.P.No.2. Thereafter complainant purchased the vehicle from O.P.No.1 paying Rs. 60,000/-. Purchaser received the NOC from O.P. in time but could not transfer the same in his name and requested the O.P. The transfer work was time taking being an auctioned vehicle and covered by RTA, Bargarh. Being impatient Complainant sent pleader notice. The O.P. requested the Complainant to return the vehicle and take another vehicle of Sambalpur registration but Complainant not turned off. There is no deficiency on the part of O.P. as it is a personal dealing between Complainant and Mrs. Rahul Modak. The answering O.P. is ready to exchange the vehicle.
3. The O.P. No.2 in reply submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer of the O.P.No.2. There is no contractual relation between O.P.No.2 and Complainant which is evident from agreement for sale dated 28.06.2022. The O.P. No.2 is not a necessary party.

In auction sale the vehicle was sold to O.P.No.1 on 09.03.2020 and handed over the NOC dated 21.04.2022 to O.P. No.1. The O.P.No.1 duly indemnified O.P.NO.2 on 03.03.2022 and took the total responsibility for transfer of the ownership in his name or in the name of another individual ensuring other legal complicacies like insurance, payment of tax etc.

There is no cause of action against O.P.No.2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Perused the documents filed by the parties. O.P.No.1 is the highest auction bidder and purchased vehicle No. OD-17s-6217 for a sale consideration of Rs. 27,500/-. The O.P.No.1 executed indemnity bond infovour of O.P.No.2 dated 03.03.2022 and took the responsibility for transfer of ownership, insurance, permit etc. As the O.P.No.1 has only link with O.P.No.2, the Complaint is no way connected with O.P.No.2 Complainant purchased the vehicle alleged from O.P. No.1. Accordingly, the Complainant is not a consumer of O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 is not a necessary party in his complaint.
5. From agreement for sale dated 28.06.2022 it reveals that the O.P.No.1 received sale consideration amount of Rs. 60,000/- from Complainant and assured to provide NOC within 90 days but failed to do so. It amounts to deficiency in service. After receipt of advocate notice dated 16.09.2023 also the O.P.No.1 failed to provide ‘NOC’ to the Complainant. The O.P.No.1 in his version expressed his inability to change the transfer of ownership stating that the vehicle is an auction sold vehicle and the registration belongs to RTA, Bargarh. Non-performance of contractual obligation as a seller amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1.
6. In the meanwhile the O.P. No.1 has submitted copy of registration Certificate of the vehicle bearing No. OD 17S-6217

Accordingly, following order is passed; taking into consideration the circumstances of the case.

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed on contest against O.P.No.1 and dismissed against O.P.No.2. For deficiency in service the O.P.No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.

Order pronounced in open court on 6^th day of August, 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.