District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/25/2021
(Date of Filing:-28.01.2021)
- Sri Tanmoy Dutta of
421, Mallick Gali, Chinsurah,
P.O. & P.S. Chinsurah
District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712101.……Complainant
Versus -
- Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ld.,
Old Delhi Road, Madhpur Bus stop, Banghati, P.O. Serampore
District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712203
- Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Kona Expressway, Nibra, Salap, NH-6, Howrah
- Zheeruddin Laskar, P.O. Dhulagori, P.S. Sankrail, District:- Howrah, Pin-711302
……….Opposite Parties
Before:-
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Chowdhury, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd.16.04.2024
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the alleged deviation from the commitments of the OP 1 and 2 in the matter of sale of a car on exchange basis to the complainant and consequent change of name of the owner 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.
The Complainant, already owner of a vehicle i.e. Maruti Zen LX, being desirous of purchasing a new vehicle visited Bhandari Automobies Pvt. Ltd. ‘Chandernagore’ in the month of February 2016 and decided to purchase a car under the model name ‘Maruti Alto’.
Reportedly, having been approached by the staff of the said Company for making the purchase on exchange basis i.e. purchase of the new car against exchange of the old car, resulting in a price discount, the Complainant became inclined to accept the proposal.
Consequent upon that, on 16.02.16, the Complainant reportedly received the delivery of the new car and handed over the old car owned by him by way of sale to M/S Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. i.e. OP 1.
A delivery note to that effect of sale is claimed to have been handed over to the Complainant,wherein both the parties put their respective signatures. The Complainant claims to have received assurance from the concerned OP that for necessary paper work, he would be intimated accordingly. The Complainant agreed to this.
However after more than four years i.e. on 31.07.2020 the Complainant received a sms from Kolkata Traffic Police informing him that the vehicle which was handed over to the OP 1 had been prosecuted for driving in excessive speed vide case dtd.28.07.2020 and he was directed to pay a fine within 07 (seven) days failing which necessary legal action would be taken against him.
However it was detected from online enquiry that the old vehicle which was handed over to the concerned OP on 16.02.16 was still standing in the Complainant’s name and its insurance was not up to date. Naturally the Complainant was astonished to see that even after such a long time the vehicle was plying on the road without proper transfer of ownership.
On 02.08.2020 the matter was conveyed to the Kolkata Traffic Police through e-mail. Simultaneously e-mails in this regard were sent to OP 1 and OP 2 seeking their opinion. From the reply mail of OP 2 it was revealed that the handed over vehicle was sold to one Zheeruddin Laskar, OP 3 in the instant case. The matter was also conveyed to the concerned Police authority.
OP 2 also informed that OP3 by that time ‘transferred’ the car to somebody else.
It is further reported by the Complainant that subsequently in several occasions i.e. on 26.08.2020, 03.10.2020, 08.10.2020, 10.10.2020, 11.10.2020, 15.10.2020, 26.10.2020, 02.11.2020 and 07.01.2021 identical sms were received from the concerned authority on traffic rules violation ground.
The Complainant claims that on 16.02.16 itself it was agreed between the Complainant and the concerned opposite party that from that day onwards the OP 1 would be fully responsible for all sorts of damage claim, accidents, theft, civil or criminal liability. It was also agreed at that point of time that as and when requested from the OP 1’s end, the Complainant would be helping the OP 1 for change of ownership of the vehicle.
However no such request was received by the Complainant from the OP 1’s end and the Complainant was under the notion that he would be called upon by the OP 1 as and when required. But no such occasion arose.
Thus, the SMS received from Kolkata Police was a shocking surprise for the Complainant as because of no fault on his part and perhaps because of the fault on the OP 1’s part he was to face the consequences of criminal prosecution or fine.
The issue is claimed to have been intimated to RTO Hooghly by a letter dtd.04.11.2020 with copies of the same to the concerned wing of Kolkata Police, RTO Howrah and IC Chinsurah Police Station, Hooghly.
Considering that there was gross deficiency of service on the OP1 and OP 2’s part and considering that the said OPs took recourse to unfair trade practice causing mental and financial suffering and harassment, the Complainant approaches to the Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the OP 1 to complete the documentation in respect of the old car received in exchange of the new one, and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost and ‘cost of the case’
The Complainant along with his complaint petition has submitted copies of tax invoice dtd.30.01.2016 showing the price of the car at Rs.2.76 lakh, delivery note in respect of vehicle no.WB-26C-0338 i.e. the old vehicle, copies of exchange of mails, communication made to DC, Traffic, Kolkata Police, Form-29 and 30, purported purchase agreement dtd.16.02.16, communication made to RTO Hooghly dtd.04.11.2020 and copy of e-mail dtd.02.08.2020 sent to Kolkata Traffic Police.
Evidence on affidavit and the Brief Notes of argument filed by the Complainant are almost replicas 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 1 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 case ran ex parte against all the OPs.
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.
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 exhaustive agreement, showing the specific terms and conditions between the seller and the purchaser. The purchaser in his own interest should have insisted on executing an agreement in this regard. However it is admitted by the Complainant side in his representation dtd.02.02.2024 that there was no prior agreement in this regard between the complainant and the OP 1.
From the BNA filed by the Complainant also it transpires that The OP 1 has completed the process of transfer of ownership of the disputed vehicle by this time.
Besides, on query, it has been admitted by the Complainant in his representation dtd. 02.02.2024, that since 31.03.2021 he has not received any further sms from ‘any concerned authority’.
The Complainant claims to have sold out his old vehicle i.e. Maruti Zen and handed over the possession of the vehicle to OP 1. The corresponding delivery note dtd.16.02.2016 is signed by both the Complainant and OP 1. The related tax invoice is dtd.30.01.2016. In the said tax invoice the invoice amount is shown at Rs.2,76,349/- while in the undated and unsigned ‘customer account sheet’ the amount payable by the customer is shown at Rs.2,78,682/-.
The Complainant in a communication made to the Traffic department of Kolkata Police informed that ‘he’ had sold and delivered his old vehicle to one Zheeruddin Laskar on 23.02.2016.
Again, in the letter dtd. 04.11.2020, addressed to the RTO Hooghly the Complainant informs that he handed over his old vehicle to OP 1 on 16.02.2016 and finally the vehicle was sold to that Zheeruddin laskar by OP 1.
Form-29 and 30 which were supposed to be submitted before the concerned motor vehicles authority are not properly filed up, not signed by transferee and not receipted.
Now, the issue which is shrouded with opacity is that who actually sold the old car to OP 3. Was it OP automobile company or was it the Complainant himself. Whatever be the reality, the sale/purchase/exchange took place in February 2016. The Complainant claims to have received assurances from OP1 that that ‘if necessary papers are required he would be informed’.
However on 31.07.2020 i.e. after a span of more than four years the Complainant became conscious of the fact that the ownership of the old car was not transferred and that is also after receiving sms from Kolkata Police. Being an owner of a car for a pretty long time, it is quite expected that the Complainant was well aware of the official formalities related to Motor Vehicles Rules to be observed at post-exchange state. But without even enquiring about the change of ownership of the old car, he preferred to remain indifferent depending thoroughly upon the so called assurances of OP 1 for four long years. Thus, it is apparently a case of contributory negligence.
Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case this District Commission is of the view that the Complaint petition is full of blatant inconsistencies and self contradictions.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.25/2021 cannot be allowed and the same stands dismissed ex parte 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.
