O R D E R
The presentComplaint case has been filed by the complainant Bijay Kumar Choudhary, r/o village- Ghongha Thekcha, P.O. - Dhamnilata, P.S. - Jarmundi ,Districk-Dumka against the O.P’s i.e (1)Abdul Hayat Mohammad, Manager, Bananchal Gramin Bank, Nonihat Branch, Dumka (2) Present Branch Manager, Bananchal Gramin Bank, Nonihat Branch, Dumka (3) Proprietor m/s Dilip Motors, Bhagalpur Road, Dudhani, Dumka u/s-12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 for illegally and arbitrarily not delivering registration certificate, Certificate of Insuranceand Tax token of the purchased vehicle i. ePIAGGIO Auto Rickshaw bearing Engine No-53J8179599 and Chasis No. MBX0000ZFRJ765050 and thereby committing gross negligency and deficiency of service. The complainant has prayed to direct the O.P’s to make payment Rs.1,80,000/-(One lac eighty thousand) towards principal loss and further direct to pay Rs.2,000/-(Two thousand) towards cost of litigation.
2. The brief facts of the case as revealed from the complaint petition as well as the documents annexed therewith are as follows:-
That the complainant Bijay Kumar Choudhary purchased an Auto Rickshaw of PIAGGIO Company from the O.P.No.3 m/s Dilip Motors, Bhagalpur Road, Dudhani, Dumka on 01.10.2013 through financial assistance of Bananchal Gramin Bank, Nonihat Branch, Dumka, District- Dumka. The said bank granted loan pf Rs.1,81,000/-(One lac eighty one thousand) through loan account No-TL84005563383 and said payment was made to m/s Dilip Motors (O.P.No.03) Besides the complainant also paid Rs.40,000/- in cash to O.P.No.3 towards registration, Tax token and Insurance and as such altogether 2,14,000/-(Two lac forteen thousand) was paid to m/s Dilip Motors and against the said payment the m/s Dilip Motors delivered PIAGGIO Auto Rickshaw bearing Engine No-53J8179599 and chasis No MBX0000ZFRJ765050 to the complainant. It is alleged that O.P.No-3 assured the complainant that he would provide him certificate of registration, tax token and the Insurance certificate in respect of the vehicle shortly and on this assurance the said vehicle was delivered to him.
The further case of the complainant is that the O.P’s No-3 despite laps of considerable period did not deliver the certificate of registration, tax token and certificate of insurance and due to this reason the complainant could not ply his Auto Rickshaw on the road which caused him heavy financial loss to the tune of Rs.1.5 lac. It is alleged that in absence of the said necessary papers, complainant was unable to pay road tax of his vehicle, which could be assessed about Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand) and this burden came up on the complainant due to the fault of the O.P.No.3. It is further alleged due to non delivery of the necessary papers and loss of earning caused mental agony, harassment and monetary loss of Rs.30,000/-(thirty thousand) to the complainant till filing of the case which gradually increased every month. It is further more alleged that on 12.10.2015 Opposite Party no.3 flatly refused to deliver above said necessary documents to the complainant.
The further case of the complainant is that having found no alternative he sent pleader’s notice to the O.P.no.1 and 2 for settlement of the dispute but all efforts failed hence approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.
3. Having received the complaint petition it was admitted and directed to issue notice upon O.P’s vide order dated 24.02.2016 but despite service both O.P.no.1 and 2 did not appear hence case proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dated 11.01.2018 Later O.P.No-3 was added as new party who appeared on 08.02.2018 and contested the case by filing written statement on 12.02.2018.
4. The case of the O.P No.3 as revealed in its written statement and short notes of argument dated- 26.05.2018 is that the complainant purchased an Auto Rickshaw of PIAGGIO company on financial assistance of Bananchal Gramin Bank, Nonihat branch and after receiving amount of Rs.1,81,000/- through cheque from the said bank delivered Auto Rickshaw to the complainant on 01.10.2013.It has further admitted in para-5 of written statement that after receiving proper money for registration etc. of the vehicle in question and after passing two to three weeks delivered Registration certificate, Tax token , and Insurance policy of the vehicle along with fitness certificate to the complainant.
The further case of this answering O.P. is that the present case has been filed after four years from the date of receiving entire relevant papers with respect to the vehicle in question .It is also asserted that if there was any fault on the part of this O.P. then complainant should have sent notices for such default. It is also alleged that present case has been filed with a motive to blackmail and harass this O.P. and no case of deficiency in service is made out, hence this case be dismissed with cost.
5. We have heard argument of the parties and gone through the record along with materials and documents annexed there in.
6. The complainant in support of his case has adduced oral as well as documentary evidence however, no any evidence has been led on behalf of the O.P.No-3.
7. The complainant has filed affidavited statement of three witnesses including himself, out of them C.W.1 Bijay Kumar Choudhary is the complainant, C.W.-2 Subodh Prasad Marik a witness on facts and C.W-3 Chandra Shekher Yadav is another witness on facts. Besides the oral evidence the complainant has filed following documents:-
- Photocopy of Delivery receipt of the vehicle in the name of the Bijay Kumar Choudhary by O.P.No-3;
- Photocopy of Pass-book with respect to loan in favour of the Bijay Kumar Choudhary issued by Bananchal Gramin Bank, Nonihat;
- Photocopy of Pleaders notice sent by the advocate of the complainant Shri D. N. Prasad to the Branch Manager, Bananchal Gramin Bank.
On other hand O.P.No-3 has filed photo copy of certificate of fitness, photocopy of certificate of Insurance, photocopy of certificate of registration and photocopy of tax token of the vehicle in question.
8. The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs claimed for?
F I N D I N G S
9. The admitted position of the case is that the complainant purchased an Auto Rickshaw of PIAGGIO company from the O.P.No-3 on financial assistance of O.P.No-2. The said bank granted a loan of Rs.1,81,000/-(One lac eighty one thousand) in favour of the complainant and paid to O.P.No-3, besides the complainant also paid Rs.40,000/-(Forty thousand) in cash to the O.P.N0-3 against cost of Auto Rickshaw including registration, tax token and Insurance charges. Further more it is also an admitted fact that the O.P.-3 after receiving cost of necessary documents assured complainant that he would provide the said documents within three weeks.
The complainant has categorically asserted that O.P.No-3 did not deliver the Registration certificate, Tax token and Insurance policy of the purchased vehicle and lastly on 12.10.2015 flatly refused to deliver the said documents of the vehicle.
On the other hand O.P.N0-3 have asserted that the complaint has filed frivolous and vexatious case with a view to harass him, however if necessary documents were not delivered to him then he should have reported the matter in the concerning P.S or case could have been filed in competent court of law O.P. no.3 also claimed that the why complainant did not send and legal notice to this answering O.P.
10. The complainant (C.W.1) in his affidavited statement has supported his entire case as made out in his complainant petition. Further in para-6 of the affidavited statement has stated that due to non delivery of necessary papers he could not ply his tempo on the road resulting in huge financial loss to him which has increased to Rs,2,50,000/-(Two lac fifty thousand). He has also stated that due to this reason he could not pay back the premiums of the back loan and lastly filed case before this forum.
C.W.-2 Subodh Kumar Marik has also supported the Case and corroborated the version of the complainant .Similarly C.W.-3 Chandra Shekher Yadav has also corroborated the version of the complainant.
On the analysis of the above oral evidence it is clear that the complainant was not delivered the necessary papers relating to vehicle in question either by O.P.No-2 are by O.P.N0-3.It also appears that in the said oral evidence the complainant and his witnesses have also alleged that the Branch Manager, Bananchal Gramin Bank, Nonihat Branch was responsible for not delivering of the relevant papers but it appears from the record that O.P.No-3 proprietor of m/s Dilip Motors, Dumka was impleaded as party in this case on 11.01.2018 and then O.P.no-3 appeared and filed his written statement on 07.03.2018 in which O.P.N0-3 vide para-5 has admitted that after receiving proper money from the complainant for the relevant documents it were delivered to him after two to three weeks however, did not disclose the date of delivery. Besides it is also apparent from the record that O.P.no.3 failed to submit any chit of paper showing delivery of relevant papers to the complainant. On the other hand all the witnesses including complainant categorically established that relevant papers were not delivered either by O.P.no.2or by O.P.no.3. Thus O.P.no.3 could not prove by any cogent and reliable evidence that documents were actually delivered to the complainant, where as it has been established that in spite of payment of the charges for the relevant documents O.P.N0-3 failed to provide the same. In this it clearly establishes negligency and deficiency of service on the part of O.P.No-3.
11. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that Sections-39,146 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates possession of registration certificate and Insurance certificate before plying of any vehicle on the public place and its violation is a punishable offence. Besides plying of vehicle without tax token is also an offence punishable u/s-28 of the Bihar, Jharkhand Motor vehicle Taxation Act. It has further been argued that due to unavailability of the tax token and other relevant papers the complainant could not deposite road tax and present liability has been accrued to the tune Rs.16,275/-.The learned Counsel for the O.P.No-3 could not answer to these submissions. Therefore we are the view that due to non delivery of the of relevant papers of the vehicle in question by the O.P.No-3 the complainant has suffered huge financial loss besides suffered loss to his earning.
12. Learned Counsel for the O.P.No-3 has argued that this case is hit by limitation as it has been filed after four years of the Purchase of the vehicle but we find that this plea is not tenable as because the complainant has proved that on 12.10.2015 O.P.No-3 refused to deliver the relevant documents of the vehicle to him and then complainant sent legal notice on the same day to O.P.No-2 and fastly filed this case on 20.02.2016 hence the case filed well within two years of the refusal of the O.P.no.3. Therefore this argument of learned counsel for the O.P.no.3 is not accusable.
13. Upon consideration of facts, evidence and law as referred above we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards accrued tax liability against the vehicle, further Rs,50,000/- towards loss of livelihood for 4
Yr’s due to not plying of the vehicle, further also entitled to get Rs.20,000/- towards agony and harassment sustained by the complainant and also Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. We are also of view that O.P.No-2 has not committed any negligency or deficiency in service in the present case. We are also of the view that as of now O.P.N0-3has not provided the original papers i.e. certificate of registration, certificate of insurance, tax token, fitness certificate of the vehicle to the complainant, hence O.P.N0-3 is directed to provide the said documents forthwith.
In the result,
O R D E R E D
That the case be and the same allowed on contest with cost against O.P.No-3 i.e Proprietor m/s Dilip Motors, Bhagalpur Road, Dudhani, Dumka. The O.P.No-3 is accordingly directed to make payment of Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen thousand) towards lump sum accrued tax liability of the vehicle on complainant, Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) towards loss of livelihood of the complainant for 4 Yr’s due to non plying of the vehicle. Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand) towards compensation for harassment mental agony etc. and further also Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand) towards cost of the litigation along with interest @9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of refusal i.e. that on 12.10.2015 till its payment .
The order must be complied within one month from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which necessary legal action as contemplated u/s-25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act1986 would be initiated against O.P.No-3.
The office clerk is directed to furnish copy of this order to the parties or their advocate free of cost.
This case, is thus stands decided, accordingly.
