J U D G E M E N T

The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows:

1

            That the complainant purchased a Tata Venture GZ Ambulance from the OP-1 as the OP-1 is the authorized dealer of OP-2 and the same has been hypothecated by the OP-3. The OP-1 issued invoice in favour of the complainant vide Invoice No. BdMotr-DS2-R-1112-00536, dated 30.11.2011. At the time of booking of the vehicle the complainant specifically mentioned that he intends to purchase the Ambulance vehicle but at the time of delivery the complainant found the said vehicle is not Ambulance and as such the complainant raise complaint to the OP-1 and accordingly the OP-1 assured that the said vehicle will be converted as Ambulance and accordingly Certificate of Registration has issued as Ambulance dated 03.01.2012. As per advice of the OP-1 the complainant insured the said vehicle before the National Insurance Company ltd., Benachity Branch, Durgapur in the name of the complainant on 29.11.2012. The OP-1 also insured the said vehicle before the United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Durgapur and specifically mentioned the financier name i.e. name of the OP-3 and the said insurance was issued on 21.112.2011 without knowing the facts of the complainant. Thus two insurance policy was issued in respect of the said vehicle and also an invoice was issued in favour of the complainant on 21.12.2011 vide Invoice No. BDMtr-DS2-R-1112-00698 and the same has been submitted by the OP-1 to the OP-3 without the signature of the complainant as customer thereof. When the complainant approached before the OP-3 came to know that the OP-1 have issued delivery order vide no. WAD00562C for 1 no. Tata Venture GX dt. 19.12.2011 and accordingly invoice raised by OP-1 vide no. BdMtr-DS2-B-1112-00698 dt. 21.12.2011 for 1 no. Tata Venture GX (7+1) but in very recent on 21.11.2012 theOPO-3 came to know that the complainant have received an Ambulance in Asansol Registering Authority vide Regn. No. WB-37C/4477 and thus the activity of the OP-1 is illegal and the same also prejudicial to the interest of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that due to illegal acts and deeds of the OP-1 the complainant is not entitled as a registered owner of the said vehicle, as because the OP-3 could not issue N.O.C. of the said vehicle as Ambulance. So in this situation the complainant has suffered financially and also ownership of the vehicle as Ambulance. Beside these the complainant has communicated with the OP-2 vide letter dated 27.3.2014 and at their advice the complainant communicated with the Kolkata office but no action has been taken against the said illegal acts and deeds of the OO-1 and finding no other alternative the complainant has filed this complaint praying for an order directing the OPO-1 to refund the entire amount which has been paid by the complainant to the OP- 1&3 and/or directing the OP-1 to pay entire amount of the vehicle to the complainant, directing the OP-1&2 to pay a sum of RTs. 2,00,000=00 for deficiency of service, mental suffering and agony.

2

            The POC has been contested by the OP-1 by filing written version denying the entire allegations made by the complainant. The OP-1 has further stated on payment through cash as well as through financier OP-3 the complainant as per his choice took delivery of the Tata Venture GX with Ivory white colour having chassis no. MAT483569BYJO9522 and Engine No. 4751DT18JYYSH1490 from the showroom of OP-1 with the TCR and cover note of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Valid from 21.12.2011 to 20.12.2012 with whom the OP-1 has tie up since long past as making insurance is compulsory at the time of delivery of the vehicle to the customer. Be it mentioned that the OP-1 never been issued any insurance policy of any other insurance company before or after the delivery of said vehicle nor been sold the vehicle to the complainant as Ambulance. The OP-2 is manufacturing the other vehicles exclusively for using as Ambulance nor the Tata Venture which is not only unfit and unsafe but also risky, so no such product been produced by the Tata Motors and changing the nature and character of their any vehicle or alteration of its nature is neither permissible not allowable and if converted and/or altered, the same is forbidden and contraband by the Patent Act, 1970 and Patent Rules 1972. The OP-1 has further stated that as per system all vehicles which sold under hypothecation scheme be delivered to the concerned customer only after receiving the delivery order containing the particulars of the vehicle which is to be delivered under their hypothecation-cum-loan-agreement. In the instant case the OP-1 duly received the delivery order of OP-3 and thereafter by preparing retain invoice delivered the vehicle to the complainant with copy of cover note of insurance of the said sold vehicle duly been issued by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 21.12.2011. The complainant purchased his vehicle on 21.12.2011 and as per statement of the complainant in his complaint that he purchased Tata Venture EX Ambulance from this OP but infact the complainant neither had booked nor has purchased Ambulance from this OP which is very much evident from his loan agreement with the Op-3 as well as its delivery order. By executing loan agreement with the OP-3 complainant obtained loan from it hence it was within the high knowledge of the complainant that his financer is OP-3 and its name rightly been inserted in the insurance certificate of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Which duly been handed over to him on the date of delivery of his vehicle and inspite of purchasing Tata Venture GX the complainant by his own accord illegally and wrongfully has registered the same as Ambulance and has piled the same illegally and wrongfully for long two years by suppressing the fact to the Ops as well as to the other authorities and when the OP-3 asked for repayment of loan, the complainant just to avoid the same filed the instant complaint. This OP emphatically submits that no such assurance for converting his purchased vehicle as Ambulance ever been given by this OP to the complainant

3

which is very much evident from the acts, activities and statements made in the complaint and just to escape himself from paying his installments to the financier the complainant fabricated and engineered the concocted story of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-1.  The OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

            The OP-2 has contested the case by filing separate written version denying the entire allegations has further stated that the vehicle in question was purchased on 30.11.2012 from the OP-1 and the complainant has filed the instant complaint in the year 2014. Therefore the complaint is barred by the provisions under the C.P. Act, 1986. Hence, the present complaint ought to be dismissed on the above ground alone.

            The OP-3 has also contested the case by filing written version denying the entire allegations made in the POC by the complainant. The Op-3 has further stated that the complainant is not a consumer as per C.P. Act, 1986.  It has also stated that the present complaint is barred by the law of limitation. It has also submitted that at the time of obtaining loan and hypothecating the vehicle with the Ops, had entered into a loan-cum-hypothecation. This OP further stated that the whole dispute is between the complainant the other Ops and there is no claim against this OP, and if complainant is entitled to get any sort of relief then this OP has no objection for the same. The OP-3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

            The complainant has filed relevant documents like insurance papers, invoice details etc. the complainant has also submitted an application under Section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986 for condonation of delay as the cause of action of the instant case arose on 30.11.2011 when the invoice was issued and delivered the said vehicle.

            On the date of argument the complainant and the OP-2 was present. Though the OP-1&3 filed written version separately for contesting the complaint, but as the OP-1&3 was not present and appeared on the date of argument the matter was heard ex parte against the OP-1&3.

-: Decision with reasons :-

            Before going into the merits of the case to adjudicate the matter we have taken

4

up the petition for condonation for limitation of delay filed by the complainant u/S. 24 A of the C.P. Act, 1986 as to whether the complaint is barred by limitation or not.

            It is found from the record that the complainant has filed the complaint on 08.9.2014. On scrutiny of the record it is found that the complainant has stated that the cause of action of the instant case arose on 30.11.2011 when the invoice was issued and delivered the said vehicle. During argument the ld. Counsel for the OP-2 has raised this issue and strongly argued that the complainant has miserably failed to file this complaint within the statutory period of limitation i.e. within two years from the date of cause of action. As per C.P. Act Section 24A runs as follows:

24A. Limitation period.-

1. The District forum, the State Commission of the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2.  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District forum, as the case may be, records its reasons foe condoning such delay.

            In this particular case the complaint is filed by the complainant on 08.9.2014 and the cause of action of this case is 30.11.2011. So the complaint should have been filed within 30.11.2014 to save the limitation period. But the complainant has filed this complaint after about nine months from the date of limitation period i.e. two years. Though the complainant has filed a petition for condonation of delay u/S. 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986 but in the petition the complainant has failed to explain the cause of such huge delay for non-filing of this complaint with the statutory period of limitation. So, the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate the cause of such long delay

5

as to why he has failed to file the complaint. Under such circumstances we are of the opinion that the complaint should be dismissed on the point of limitation period. Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the petition of complaint filed by the complaint is dismissed as it is barred by limitation under Section 24 A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charge.

                   (Asoke Kumar Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                  President      

                                                                                                          DCDRF, Burdwan

                    (Durga Sankar Das)

                            Member

                     DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                      (Silpi Majumder)                           (Durga Sankar Das)

                                                             Member                                             Member

                                                     DCDRF, Burdwan                            DCDRF, Burdwan