IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 64/S/2012. DATED : 09.12.2015.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SRI BISWANATH DE,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBERS : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARJEE
& SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.
COMPLAINANT : GOUTAM SENGUPTA,
S/O Late. Santosh Kr. Sengupta,
19th Tilak Road, Hakimpara,
Siliguri, PIN-734001,
Dist.- Darjeeling.
O.P. 1. : BHANDARI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,
Represented Through Asst. General Manager,
Maruti True Value, NH - 6, Nibra, Salap - 2
Howrah – 711 403.
2. : SRI JOYDEEP MITRA,
Relationship Executive,
Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
Maruti True Value, NH - 6, Nibra, Salap - 2
Howrah – 711 403.
3. : MARUTI TRUE VALUE,
Regional Office, Represented through
The Manager-In-Charge,
L&T Chamber, 4th Floor,
16, Camac Street,
KOLKATA-700 017.
4. : BEEKAY AUTO PVT. LTD.,
Maruti True Value, Represented Through
The Manager-In-Charge,
NH – 31, MATIGARA-734 001.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri Souvik Sengupta, Advocate.
FOR THE OP Nos. 1 & 2 : Sri Tapesh Bhattacharya, advocate.
FOR THE OP No.4 : Sri C. Sarkar, advocate.
Contd…..P/2
-:2:-
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.
The complainant’s case is succinctly summarized as follows :-
The complainant’s case in brief is that OP Nos.1 & 4 are the branch offices/outlets of Maruti True Value, and OP No.2 is the relationship executive in the office of the OP No.1, and OP No.3 is the registered office of Maruti True Value at Kolkata. The complainant had purchased the vehicle as mentioned in the schedule to the complaint on 28.09.2011, for a sum of Rs.2,13,500/-, from OP No.1, and the OP No.1 handed over the car to the complainant with delivery receipt dated 28.09.2011, which was duly signed by the authorized signatory, and on that occasion, the complainant was handed over single key of the car, an invalid audio player, and original tax token valid till 04.08.2012, but the delivery was made without any insurance document. At the time of the purchase, the complainant expressed his concern about the duplicate key of the vehicle, and OP No.2 had assured him that the duplicate key would be handed over to the complainant. OP No.2 had also assured the complainant that the process of transferring of ownership of the vehicle in favour of the complainant would be completed in two months, and no expenditure would be involved towards that end, and the complainant would only have to bear the cost of obtaining No Objection Certificate in favour of ARTO, Siliguri. On such assurance, the OP No.2 had obtained signatures of the complainant on some forms, and assured the complainant that he would send the certificate of registration in the name of the complainant, along with No Objection Certificate in favour of ARTO, Siliguri, after obtaining this from the present owner of the vehicle. The complainant expressed that he was willing to be present before the concerned authority for the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. Complainant served upon OP No.1 a letter dated 14.10.2011, through Pradip Mukherjee, employed as Sales Manager with the OP No.1. When
Contd…..P/3
-:3:-
he visited Kurseong along with valid original insurance policy copy vide No.101901/31/11/6100002116 for transfer of certificate of registration in the name of the complainant with No Objection Certificate in favour of ARTO, Siliguri. In the said letter, the complainant requested OP No.1 to provide the RC book, and the No Objection Certificate to him at the earliest, and the complainant also repeated his concern about being handed over a single key of the vehicle, and enquired whether OP No.1 had found out the other key, or, whether he had made any GD Entry for the missing key. The OP No.1 did not reply to the said letter. The complainant issued another letter dated 29.12.2011 as reminder of the previous one. But the OP No.1 did not reply to it. The complainant issued notice through advocate on 08.05.2012 requesting OP No.1 to take back the vehicle, and return the consideration amount along with compensation, and the letter was duly served on OP No.1. On 18.05.2012, the complainant received certain documents from OP No.1 through Speed Post, and he found that the OP No.1 had sent the Registration Certificate in favour of the existing owner with a no objection in favour of ARTO, Siliguri, dated 19.04.2012, along with two keys of the vehicle. The complainant was surprised to find that the OP No.1 had not transferred the ownership of the vehicle in his favour, and the No Objection Certificate dated 19.04.2012 in favour of ARTO, Siliguri at a validity of one month, and the complainant received it on 18.05.2012, just on the day of completion of one month. The complainant approached OP No.4 hoping to get redress for his grievances, but he got no relief there. The complainant thus, filed this case praying that the OPs be directed to take back the vehicle, and to return the consideration amount with interest, along with some other reliefs.
The OP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 have filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant against them. The positive version of OPs is that the owner of the vehicle in question Mr. Dilip Kr. Shaw resides outside jurisdiction of ARTO, Siliguri. The
Contd……P/4
-:4:-
Registering Authority of P.V.D., Kolkata, endorse the No Objection Certificate in respect of the vehicle bearing No.WB 024 0555 in favour of the Regional Authority under his seal and signature along with documents of transfer of ownership. Therefore, the said documents were sent to the complainant to enable him to register his name relating to the said vehicle without requirement of personal attendance of first owner. After getting the documents, the ARTO, Siliguri, was bound to register the transfer in the name of the complainant in accordance with the relevant rules without personal presence of Mr. Dilip Kumar Shaw. The complainant also got two keys of the vehicle. Accordingly, it is contended by the OPs that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant after plying the vehicle for a long period of time willfully and baselessly preferred this present case with malafide intention. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly, the case should liable to be dismissed.
The OP No.4 has also filed written statement and stated that complainant never came to the office of the OP No.4 and complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the case filed by the complainant should be dismissed.
The complainant has filed the following documents :-
1. Money Receipt issued by Bhandari Automobiles dated 28.09.2011.
2. Money Receipt issued by Bhandari Automobiles dated 28.09.2011.
3. Delivery receipt issued by Bhandari Automobiles dated 28.09.2011.
4. Tax token of the car valid up to 04.08.2012.
5. Letter issued by the complainant dated 14.10.2011.
6. Certificate of Insurance in the name of the complainant.
7. Layer’s notice sent by the complainant dated 08.05.2012.
8. Lawyer’s notice sent by the OP.
9. Certificate of registration in the name of Dilip Kumar Shaw.
10. No-Objection Certificate in favour of A.R.T.O., Siliguri.
Contd…..P/5
-:5:-
The complainant has adduced evidence-in-chief.
The OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 have also adduced evidence-in-chief.
From the evidence and documents of both sides, it transpires that complainant purchased the vehicle from OP No.1. There is no dispute between the parties regarding selling of the vehicle by the OP No.1 to the complainant. Complainant got possession of the vehicle on 28.09.2011 by Annexure No.1, 2 & 3. The only dispute is with the registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant after transfer of the vehicle by OP No.1. Admittedly, the original owner of the vehicle was Dilip Kumar Shaw, who resides within the jurisdiction of the Kolkata Motor Vehicles Department. The vehicle was transferred by the OP No.1 and possession was delivered. The registration certificate was in the name of previous owner. The OP W 1 sent the No Objection Certificate of Public Vehicle Department, Kolkata to the ARTO, Siliguri, but due to short period the same was not done. The complainant stated on oath that “to my utter astonishment the OP No.1 has not transferred the ownership of the vehicle in favour of me moreover they have sent a no-objection certificate dated 19.04.2012 in favour of A.R.T.O., Siliguri, having validity of one month and the same was sent by the OP No.1 on 14.05.2012 and received by the complainant on 18.05.2012 i.e., just on the date of completion of one month”.
From the material on record, it established that complainant purchased the vehicle relying the assurances of the OP Nos.1 & 2 regarding completion of all steps to effect a complete transfer of movable property in the name of the complainant. But same was not done by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 being a reputed company. The conduct reflected in the record i.e., in the application, objection, affidavit, evidence of both sides obviously shows that the vehicle is still in the name of the previous owner Dilip Kumar Shaw in the registration certificate which ought to have been replaced by the new owner complainant for smooth movement
of the vehicle in question in accordance with the rules. The OP Nos. 1 &
Contd…..P/6
-:6:-
2 have shown their reluctancy in acting in fulfilling their promise in the interest of the purchaser. The OPs should have taken sufficient steps for mutation the name of the complainant in place of previous owner.
So, after deep deliberation over the materials on record, this Forum is of opinion that there had been deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2.
Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get order for Registration of the vehicle in his own name by the OPs, and cost shall be borne by the OP Nos. 1 & 2, or refund the consideration amount of Rs.2,13,500/- from the OP Nos.1 & 2.
The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and sufferings.
The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.7,000/- towards cost of Insurance policy.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.64/S/2012 be, and the same is hereby allowed on contest against in part against the OP Nos.1 & 2 and the case is dismissed against OP No.4 and ex-parte dismissed against OP No.3.
The complainant is entitled to get order for Registration of the vehicle in his own name by the OPs, and cost shall be borne by the OP Nos. 1 & 2, or refund the consideration amount of Rs.2,13,500/- from the OP Nos.1 & 2.
The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and sufferings from the OP Nos.1 & 2.
The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost from the OP Nos.1 & 2.
Contd…..P/7
-:7:-
The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.7,000/- towards cost of Insurance policy from the OP Nos.1 & 2.
The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to register the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the complainant and cost shall be borne by them i.e. OP Nos.1 & 2, or refund the consideration amount of Rs.2,13,500/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within 6 (six) months from the date of this order.
The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for mental pain, agony and sufferings within 45 days from the date of this order.
The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order.
The OP Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable, are further directed to pay Rs.7,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards Insurance premium within 45 days from the date of this order.
Failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order, till realization.
In case of default of Registration of the ownership or payment as ordered above, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law.
Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
-Member- -Member- -President-
