The brief facts of the case are that OP No. 1 is the authorized dealer of TATA Company and OP No. 2 is the Sales Executive of OP No. 1. Complainant being an unemployed person intended to purchase a used vehicle from the OP No. 1 with the help of OP No. 2. Subsequently, he purchased a TATA Ace on 25.08.2012 from OP No. 2 and paid a sum of Rs. 40,750/- by a cheque being no. 005149 of Central Bank of India to this OP No. 1 and remaining Rs. 1,10,000/- as taken loan from OP No.3 and paid to OP No. 1. As per EMI fixed by the OP No. 3, he is paying Rs. 5,852/- as EMI and paid 23 EMIs and by paying full amount he received clearance certificate from OP No. 3 on 01.08.2014. Since after purchasing of the vehicle the complainant is requesting to register the said vehicle in his favour. But the OP No. 1 informed this complainant that he has to bring no objection from OP No. 3 after paying due amount. Lastly the complainant getting No Objection Certificate from OP No. 3 requested the OP No. 1 on 21.12.2014 to register the vehicle in his favour. Then the OP No. 1 & 2 assured him to register the said vehicle within 3 months and took the registration fee from the complainant. After expiry of three months despite registering the said in favour of the complainant OP No. 1 & 2 harassed and misbehaved with this complainant. Facts remain that due to lack of registration in his favour the complainant could not continue his business. As a result he incurred a loss amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/- for a period of 3 years and 6 months. Lastly on 03.06.2015 OP No. 1 & 2 refused to register the vehicle in his favour. As such he preferred the recourse of this Forum praying direction upon the OP No. 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for causing monetary loss amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/-. He also prayed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.
OP No. 1 & 2 filed a written version denied the allegation as leveled against them and averred that the complainant purchased the II hand vehicle being no. WB11A9697 old TATA Motors Model Ace and paid down payment and rest final payment through Chola Mondalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, OP No. 3 on 25.08.2012. OP No. 2 handed over all documents signed from the previous owner to the financer after receiving final payment. OP No. 2 neither received any amount for registration nor assured any time period and also not asked to bring any NOC from the financer and never harassed the complainant. The complainant neither approached for the registration as alleged to the OP No. 1 & 2 nor the OP No. 1 & 2 denied the complainant. It is required to make the Regional Transport Authority a necessary party in this proceeding.
Despite receiving notice OP No. 3 did not turn up. So the proceeding runs ex parte against OP No. 3.
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief which is nothing but replica of complaint petition. He supports the averments of the complaint petition.
OP No. 1 filed affidavit-in-chief in which he stated that OP No. 1 is the dealer of TATA Made Commercial Vehicles and OP No. 2 is the Sales Executive of OP No. 1. OP No. 2 has been working as Head of sales of TATA Motors ACE model under Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. The complainant purchased the said II hand vehicle being no. WB 11A9697 and first paid down payment and rest final payment through Chola Mondalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., OP No. 3. The OP No. 2 also handed over all documents signed from the previous owner to the financer after receiving the final payment and OP No. 1 & 2 never received any amount for registration nor assured any time period and not enquired for NOC. The complainant never stated that he placed the documents before the Transport Authority for registration and now after more than 3 years filed this case with false allegations against the OP No. 1 & 2. So the OP No. 1 & 2 prays that the petition is not maintainable before this Forum.
OP No. 2 filed evidence-on-affidavit in which he stated that OP No. 1 is a dealer of TATA made Commercial vehicles and he is the Sales Executive of OP No. 1. He is working as Head of Sales of TATA Motors ACE Model under Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. The complainant purchased the said II Hand vehicle being registration no. WB11A9697 TATA Motors Model ACE and first paid down payment and rest final payment through OP No. 3 on 25.08.2012. OP No. 2 handed over all documents signed from the previous owner to the financer after receiving the final payment. OP No. 1 & 2 neither received any amount for registration nor assured any time period and also nor asked the complainant to bring any NOC from the financer as alleged. He never harassed the complainant and also assailed that the complainant never approached for registration before the OP No. 1 & 2. If the complainant faced any problem regarding the registration before the Transport Department then he might have been approached before the OP No. 1 & 2. But he failed to do the same. The complainant never stated that after purchase he placed the documents before the transport authority for registration and now after more than 3 years filed this case on false pretext. So this case is not maintainable in eye of law.
Argument advanced by the agents of the parties heard in full. Both sides file BNA which are taken into consideration for passing Final Order.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainant Partha Pratim De is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3).Whether the OPs carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions hereinabove we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
- Whether the Complainant Partha Pratim De is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite Party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant being a customer of the OP No.1, the OP No.2 is the managerial person of the OP No.1 and the OP no.3 is the financier so they are responsible to provide service to this complainant.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents and/or carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the Opposite Parties carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
Case of the complainant is that he being an unemployed person purchased the II hand TATA Ace vehicle from OP No. 1 with the help of OP No. 2 on 25.08.2012 by paying a sum of Rs. 40,750/- through cheque and remaining consideration money amounting to Rs. 110,000/- paid by taking loan from OP No. 3. Subsequently, he repaid the loan amount by 23 installments and received Clearance Certificate from OP No. 3. Point of dispute is that the complainant on several occasions approached the OP No. 1 & 2 to register the impugned vehicle in his favour. But OP No. 1 & 2 took no initiative to register the vehicle in favour of the complainant before the Registering Authority. As a result the complainant could not ply the vehicle on road and suffered a loss in his transport business amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/-. Lastly on 03.06.2015 the OP No. 1 & 2 refused to register the vehicle in his favour. So, he getting no alternative preferred the recourse of this Forum praying reliefs as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.
OP No. 1 & 2 in his argument assailed that he never assured the complainant to register the vehicle before the Registering Authority as well as took no fees as registration fee, he never asked the complainant to bring any NOC from the financer. The answering OP assailed that the vehicle has been purchased in the year 2012 and the allegation was made first time by filing this petition in the year 2016. So, the complaint petition is barred by limitation. He also assailed that if the complainant unable to ply the vehicle immediately after his purchase in the year 2012 then he must have lodged a complaint immediately after purchasing the vehicle in the year 2012. But, the complainant after purchasing the vehicle paid up his dues time to time and obtained no dues certificate. The complainant is not a consumer as he plied the vehicle in commercial purpose. OP No. 1 & 2 referred the case reference of National Commission namely, M/s. Richa & Co. vs. Dlf Universal Ltd. pronounced on 1st October, 2012 in which Hon’ble Commission held that a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. A Purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. In the above illustrations, if such buyer takes the assistance of one or two persons to assist/help him in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer. As against this a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated exclusively by another person would not be a consumer.
It appears from the case record that the vehicle being no. WB11A9697 registered before District Magistrate, Howrah Motor Vehicles Department and the said vehicle insured before Chola M.S. General Insurance from 31.08.2012 to 30.08.2013 in the name of Partha Pratim De (Complainant herein) and the place of registration is Hooghly. So, the complainant insured the vehicle since after the purchase of the vehicle. But the NOC covering letter addressed to this complainant stated that the documents towards settlement of the agreement required i) No Objection Certificate to RTO, ii) Form -35 in duplicate, iii) No Objection Certificate to insurance co. iv) Number of cancelled post dated cheques and the said letter also speaks that the given NOC is valid only if the current registered owner of the above vehicle is Pratha Pratim De. In case if the current registered owner is different then the NOC is not valid and the NOC is valid upto 16th February, 2015. From the complaint petition it is transparent that the complainant failed to register his name within the validity of NOC. According to the version of the OP No. 1 & 2 that they never took any fees for registering the vehicle in question before the Registering Authority from the complainant. The complainant failed to procure not a scrap of paper from which we can infer that complainant tried his best to register the said vehicle before the Registering Authority with the help of OP No. 1 & 2. No paper in respect of payment of fees to OP No. 1 & 2 is produced. After purchasing the vehicle the complainant after elapsing 4 years approached this Forum alleging the deficiency of service of the OP No. 1 & 2 which is not tenable in fact and law.
From the above discussion we are in the opinion that the complainant failed to prove his case by producing sufficient documents and argued on the point whether the OP is deficient in providing service and they are under liability to pay compensation alongwith other reliefs prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint.
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite parties are liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant has failed to prove his case and the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation for mental pain and agony of the complainant.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.77 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Party.
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 acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.
