District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly

PETITIONER

VS.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Complaint Case No.CC/74/2020

(Date of Filing:-09.11.2020)

1. Sri Joydeb Majhi

Majhipara, Village and P.O. Jagatnagar, P.S. Singur,

District:- Hooghly, Pin:-712407

    Versus  -

1. Achinta Hajra, Proprietor of Manorama Enterprise

Sripatipur, P.O. Sheakhala, P.S. Haripal, District:- Hooghly, Pin-712409

2. Manorama Enterprise

Sripatipur, P.O. Sheakhala, P.S. Haripal, District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712409

………Opposite Parties

Before:-

Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President

Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

PRESENT:                            

                                       Dtd. 09.12.2024

                                 Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with treatment extended by the opposite parties as mentioned above in the matter of purchase of a two-wheeler i.e. Motor cycle and the post sales services thereof, the instant case has been filed by the complainant on 09.11.20, u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 involving two opposite parties as mentioned above.

Brief facts of the case

The complainant, purchased a motor cycle from the OP 2 on 09.10.16 and paid Rs.54,500/-. towards cost of the motor cycle, fees of registration certificate and registered number plate.

Reportedly at the time of purchase, OP 1 assured the Complainant that he would make necessary arrangements for acquiring the registration certificate and the number plate.

However the motor cycle was delivered to the Complainant along with the delivery challan and cash receipt.

Allegedly, after one month when the Complainant approached to the OPs, OP 1 sought for three months time more to arrange the registration certificate and the number plate.

For natural reasons the Complainant was not in a position to use the vehicle properly on road.

On 07.03.2017, when the Complainant again approached to OPs, the dealer took another 25 days for getting the things ready and took Rs.1700/- from the Complainant for insurance premium.

But even after the said 25 days the OPs failed to hand over the required registration certificate and the number plate.

At this, the Complainant finding no other way, sent a legal notice to the OP 1 on 10.08.2020 which though was responded by sending a reply to the said legal notice, no positive step was taken by the OPs to redress the grievances of the Complainant.

 Resultantly, at this stage the Complainant approaches to this Commission by filing the complaint petition, with a prayer for imposing direction upon the OPS to deliver the registration certificate and the number plate in respect of the motor cycle purchased by the Complainant from the OPS, to pay Rs.1,40,000/- as compensation for causing all sorts of harassment, to pay ‘cost’ of Rs.60,000/- and other relief as deemed fit and proper.

The cause of action is claimed to have arisen first on 10.08.2020 when the Complainant issued notice upon the Opposite party No.1 for acquiring his legitimate documents.

The Complainant along with his petition has filed photocopies of money receipt of Rs.54,500/-  in the letterhead of the OP 1, corresponding delivery challan, legal notice sent to OP 1 and postal receipt and postal track report thereof, Insurance policy schedule, money receipt issued by Hooghly RTO, WB against payment of Rs.4640/- related to MV Tax, New Registration, Plastic Card etc., reply received from OP 1 to the legal notice sent by the Complainant.    

Evidence on affidavit is almost replica of the Complaint petition. However in the concluding part of the evidence on affidavit the Complainant has denied all the allegations leveled against him by the OPs in their written version.

 Defence case:- The opposite parties contested the case by filing written versions, evidence on affidavits and brief notes of argument denying all the allegations leveled against them in the complaint petition.

OPs in their written version after admitting the purchase of the motor cycle by the Complainant denies the allegation that at the time of purchase, assurance was given by them to the Complainant that they would make arrangement for acquiring registration certificate and registered number plate related to the vehicle.

After admitting the receipt of payments to the tune of Rs.54,500/- the OPs deny that the amount was inclusive of charges payable for registration certificate and registered number plate.

Now after denying almost all the allegations leveled in the complaint petition, the OPs proceed to depict the ‘actual fact’ as per their own version.

The OPs claim that after purchasing the motor cycle the Complainant requested the OPs to help him in the matter of getting the registration certificate and registration no. of the vehicle from the concerned regional transport authority of Government of West Bengal. The OPs here point out that only on request of the Complainant and not as a service provider, the issue was taken up by them and applications were submitted before the concerned authority for the required registrations.

The OPs further submit that the vehicle in question was a BS-III model and on and from 01.04.2017 Government of India by its circular in official gazette stopped the registration of all BS-III model vehicles.

Reportedly, the Concerned RTO denied to register the vehicle accordingly. Allegedly, when the matter was intimated to the Complainant, the Complainant with some hooligans came to the show room of the OPs on 02.02.2019 and threatened him of dire consequences.

 Since then, the Complainant never came to the OPs for the required registration. The OPs put stress on the issue that they never accepted the proposal of the Complainant to arrange the registrations as service provider and they had acted only upon good faith and accordingly they paid the required fees before the concerned RTO. But, when the authority declined to grant the registrations, OPs had no other option open to get the registration done.

Evidence on affidavit filed by the OP 1 is almost replica of the written version.
 

Issues for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.                                                                                  
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.

                                          Decision with reason

Issue No. 1

In the instant case OPs were supposed to extend service against certain consideration money received from the complainant, Thus, in view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.

Issue No. 2

 The complainant and the opposite parties are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.

The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-

Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Issue No. 3 and 4

Now the issues whether there was any deficiency of service on OPs’ part and whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief will be discussed in the concluding part of the order as the issues are mutually inter-related.

Decision with reasons

 Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, written versions, evidence on affidavit and brief notes on argument filed by the complainant, and opposite parties and other connected records are perused.

OPs in their representations submitted through written version and evidence on affidavit has admitted to have sold a motor cycle to the Complainant against a consideration price of Rs.54,500/- . It is also admitted that on request, the OPs took the responsibility of arranging registration of the vehicle from the concerned RTO.

However, the OPs failed to get the job done, as with effect from 01.04.2017 Government of India by its circular in its official Gazette had stopped the registration of all BS III model vehicles, 

The OPs allege that on 02.02.2019 the Complainant accompanied by some local hooligans came to the OP 2 show room and threatened OP 1 with dire consequences and extorted a sum of Rs.7000/- only by way of coercion. However in support of the said allegation no hard evidence could be filed by the OPs. Moreover the OPs do not appear to have filed any FIR in this regard with the local Police Station. Thus the credibility of the incident as depicted by the OPs is questionable.

It transpires from the records that in spite of allowance of sufficient opportunities the OPs failed to file interrogatories against the evidence of the Complainant within a reasonable time. In the result the Commission declined to accept the interrogatories filed by the OPs.

Now so far as the interrogatories filed by the Complainant against the evidence on affidavit of the OPs are concerned, the OPs admitted that it was their duty to provide the service of getting registration of the vehicle. It is further admitted by the OPs that they had failed to get the registration done in respect of the vehicle purchased by the Complainant.

While replying question no.6, the OPs admit to have received all the necessary fees and charges from the Complainant for providing registration certificate of the vehicle.

The vehicle was purchased on 09.10.2016 and the registration of BS-III model vehicles was stopped on the strength of a Government notification with effect from 01.04.2017.

Now the question which naturally arises that what positive steps were taken by the OPs to arrange the registration of the vehicle and to acquire the number plate during the period from 09.10.2016 to 31.03.2017.

On examination of the series of events, it clearly transpires that even after having substantial time, the OPs failed to get the registration of the vehicle as per their commitment.

In view of the above this Commission is of the opinion that there was gross deficiency of service on the OPs’ part     

Hence, it is     

                                                     ORDERED

 that the complaint case bearing no.74/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part.

 At this juncture, in view of the Government notification, no instruction can be passed to get the registration of the vehicle which is a BS-III model.

However directions are being imposed upon the OPs to make refund of the consideration price of the motor cycle, after deducting 40% depreciation and to make refund also of all charges realized for the proposed registration, to the Complainant provided the Complainant will deliver back the vehicle to the OPs.

Besides, OPs are being further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost.

OPs will have to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of passing of this order failing which OPs will be liable to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Consumer Legal Aid Account. 

           Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in.