District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/119/2021
(Date of Filing:-14.09.2021)
- Sri Jyotirmoy Das of
Baghbazar, N.K.Sarkar Road,
P.O. Chandannagar P.S.,
District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712136.……Complainant
Versus -
- The Proprietor, Bengal Hyundai,
Chinsurah Station Road, Cold Storage Complex, P.O. Chinsurah
District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712102……….Opposite Party
Before:-
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd.09.10.2023
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the alleged deviation from the commitments of the OP in the matter of sale of a car on exchange basis to the complainant and showing indifference at the post sale stage, towards observation of necessary technical formalities under the extant motor vehicle rules, the instant case has been filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The backdrop of the case as depicted by the Complainant, in a nutshell is as follows.
Reportedly, on being attracted by a newspaper advertisement, the Complainant approached to the OP for purchasing a car on exchange basis. Accordingly the OP after having a discussion in this regard with the Complainant, gave a proposal to sell a car of 2017 model and offered a discount of Rs.1,00,000/- against the exchange of an old car owned by the Complainant. Consequent upon that, there was exchange of documents and payment of booking money in advance. But at the time of delivery the Complainant came to know that the vehicle to be delivered was of 2016 model and not of 2017 as previously assured by the OP. As the Complainant was reluctant to take delivery of the car, the OP offered a deduction of Rs. 1,56,953/- in the tax invoice and further Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid shortly to the Complainant against the acceptance of the car of 2016 model. It was further assured by the OP that necessary documentation in respect of the old car given by the Complainant against the exchange would be done within a specified period.
Accepting the proposal the Complainant took delivery of the car and handed over his old car with all the related documents.
However, allegedly in spite of repeated visits to the OP’s place of business, repeated phone calls, ‘many oral communications’, neither the committed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was given nor any information in the matter of transfer of name of ownership of the old vehicle was supplied.
A letter in this regard is claimed to have been sent to the OP on 01.09.2018.
Simultaneously information in this regard was sent to RTO, Barasat, with copies to IC, Chandannagar P.S. and Chinsurah P.S. on 22.11.2018.
As further persuasion with the OP did not yield any result, another letter was sent to the OP on 14.03.2019.
When a further visit at the OP’s place of business was made the OP on 18.08.2019, the OP expressed their intention to give Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- and to arrange the required formalities for transfer of ownership of the old car in terms of motor vehicles rules.
However, in February 2020 some unknown person claiming to be an agent of the opposite party came to the Complainant’s residence and handed over certain papers viz. smart card of the old car, Form-29 and Form-30 ‘signed by some Tapas Saha’, copies of Adhar card, Pan card and voter card of that Tapas Saha to the Complainant.
As there was no substantial result from the OP’s end, a legal notice was sent to the OP on 18.12.2020 and a complaint was lodged with the Chinsurah P.S. on 27.12.2020.
Considering the OP’s gross indifference towards the ‘legal claim’ as deficiency of service, the Complainant approaches to the Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the OP to ‘disburse the total claim of Rs.70,000/- against the exchange of the old car’, pay Rs.50,000/- for causing mental pain and agony, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as ‘legitimate cost’, to complete the documentation in respect of the old car received in exchange of the new one and to pay interest @12% p.a. ‘from the date of intimation of the claim till realization’.
The Complainant along with his complaint petition has submitted copies of proforma invoice dtd.11.12.2017 showing the price of the car at Rs.5.42 lakh, delivery challan, Boking receipt showing advance payment of Rs.5000/-, tax invoice dtd.22.12.2017 showing the price at Rs.5,00,096/- after deduction, pollution under control certificate dtd.29.1.2017, policy schedule cum certificate of insurance, smart card of the old car, advertisement of Bengal Hyundai published in a widely circulated daily newspaper, blank form-29 and Form-30 signed by the Complainant himself, letter sent to the OP dtd.01.09.18 (not receipted), letter to the OP dtd. 14.03.19 (not receipted), letter sent to RTO Barasat dtd.22.11.18 (Receipted), legal notice sent to the OP and copy of the GD lodged with the concerned P.S.
Evidence on affidavit and the Brief Notes of argument filed by the Complainant are almost replica of the Complaint petition.
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records, it transpires that the complainant is a consumer so far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.
The complainant and the OP are resident/having their office within the geographical jurisdiction of this District Commission i.e. 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.
The OP contested the case by filing elaborate rebuttals in their written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument.
In the representations, the OP denied all the allegations leveled against them. The notable issues pointed out by the OP in their written version are as follows.
- The complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties as the OP is not the manufacturer of the vehicle but a mere dealer.
- The complaint appears to have been made on the basis of surmises and conjectures as the Complainant has failed to produce valid documents in support of his contentions.
- Complaint has been lodged against a proprietorship company but the OP is actually a private limited concern.
- The complainant lodged a complaint before the Consumer affairs Department in this regard but on being summoned he failed to produce necessary supporting documents.
- The OP denies that the Complainant availed of any exchange offer
- The OP even denies the matters related to giving an estimate for a car manufactured in 2017 and offering a discount of Rs.1,00,000/- for selling a car of 2016 make instead.
- In fact the OP thoroughly denies that there was any sale against exchange basis and an old car was given to them by the Complainant against the said exchange.
- It is further pointed out that the copies of form 29 and form 30 are not properly authenticated.
- The Complainant’s repeated visit to the OP’s place of business, repeated phone calls and oral communications are denied outright by the complainant. No letter is claimed to have been received by the OP from the Complainant.
Decision with reasons:-
Materials on records are perused.
A thorough scrutiny of the complaint petition indicates that there are certain areas in the complaint petition which are grossly questionable.
Firstly, the OP is shown in the Complaint petition as a proprietorship concern whereas the Op is actually a unit of a Private Limited Company under the name J.J. Automotive Ltd.
However, even if the technical mistake is treated as a minor insignificant error and is ignored, the statements incorporated in the petition are apparently not supported by corroborating evidences.
Sale of car on exchange basis cannot be compared with sale of utensil or readymade garments on exchange basis. In the instant case the transaction was in lakhs. Thus it is naturally expected that before materializing this transaction which was on exchange basis there should have been a prior agreement between the seller and the purchaser. The purchaser in his own interest should have insisted on executing an agreement in this regard. Neither the proforma invoice nor the final tax invoice indicates in any way that the sale was on exchange basis. The Complainant received the new car by signing the delivery challan. But the Complainant does not appear to have any such document in his possession which can establish that the old vehicle was delivered to the OP.
The Complainant claims to have sent certain letters to the OP copies of which have been submitted along with the complaint petition. But no evidence in support of receipt of those by the OP could be produced. The Complainant did not send any e-mail to the OP in this regard in spite of the fact that the OP had an e-mail address.
The Complainant claims in his petition that form-29 and form-30 signed by one Sri Tapas Saha were given to him by some unknown person. But the copies of form-29 and form-30 annexed to the complaint petition are totally blank and signed by none other than by the complainant himself.
The series of events as depicted in the complaint petition is written statement only and the same is not substantiated by hard evidences.
This will be worth mentioning that the concerned RTO was requested to give whereabouts of the vehicle no.WB-26-C6702 which the Complainant claims to have handed over to the OP against the sale on exchange basis. The RTO in his communication has accordingly informed that the vehicle is lying in ‘New Motor Garage, Kholapota, 24-Pgs (N), WB-743428’ and the owner of the vehicle as on date is Jyotirmoy Das i.e. the Complainant himself.
Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case this District Commission is of the view that the Complainant grossly fails to establish his point so far as the allegations leveled against the OP are concerned.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.119/2021 cannot be allowed and the same stands dismissed on contest with no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/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.
