West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/122/2013

Sri Ashesh Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.122/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 29/08/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Maity, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                        : Mr. Sk. C. Ali, Advocate.                                   

          

    Sri Ashesh Das, S/o Late R.C. Das of Patnabazar, P.O. Medinipur, P.S. Kotwali, Dist- Paschim   

    Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

    Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Authorised Maruti True Value Show Room, at Jhapatapur,   

    Kharagpur, P.O.- Kharagpur, P.S.- Kharagpur (Town), Dist- Paschim Medinipur, Pin-

    721301...……………Op.

          The case of the complainant Sri Ashesh Das, in short, is that a Maruti Wagon-R being its registration no.WB68K/2408 was purchased by the complainant from the true value division of the OP at a price of 337000/-(Three lakhs thirty seven thousand) only including RTO charges of 15000/- (Fifteen thousand) only.  In this connection, it is alleged that till date the Op did not complete the RTO related work even after expiry of scheduled period duly agreed by them.  Stating the case the complainant has come before us seeking relief as prayed for.  In this connection, payment receipts with sale invoice and booking form are filed.     

           The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action apart from that it is submitted by the Op that the complainant initially asked for change of ownership in his name and thereafter changed his proposal and suggested the ownership in the name of his wife.  Accordingly, the change of ownership has been accomplished in his wife’s name Rita Das in the RTO documents.  In order to support the plea, the relevant documents are produced by the Op.  Thus, it is claimed that there is no case in favour of the complainant and as such the case should be dismissed.      

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

 

                                                                                                 Contd……..……P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

 

2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the vehicle was purchased in the name of the complainant at a price of 337000/-(Three lakhs thirty seven thousand) only        including RTO charges, namely change of ownership.  But the chance of ownership has not yet been in favour of the complainant.  In view of the fact, it is claimed that the case filed by the complainant is merited for getting relief in terms of the prayer against the Op.

        It is vehemently challenged by the Op through his Ld. Advocate that the case of allegation made by the complainant is baseless and incorrect as for the name of ownership has already been done in the name of Rita Das, wife of the complainant in respect of the vehicle.  Supporting the version Xerox copy of registration certificate in the name of Rita Das in terms of request made by the complainant.  If that be so, there is no case against the Op and as such the case should be dismissed.

        The case alongwith the relevant materials on record is carefully scrutinized it appears that there is no dispute on the point of purchased of the vehicle in the name of the complainant Ashesh Das.  In this connection, there is no challenge regarding change of ownership of the vehicle to be done by the Op upon due receipts of RTO charges from the complainant.  If that be so, it is the duty of the Op to satisfy the complainant by virtue of giving service in completion of RTO formalities.  But there is no evidence to show that the Op made arrangement for change of name of ownership in favour of the complainant Ashes Das.  As to the case of the Op, change of ownership has been done in the name of the wife Rita Das of the complainant without any legal documents to that effect in favour of Rita Das.  It is surprising to note that without valid transfer document or any instrument in the name of Rita Das, how the name of ownership in the form of registration certificate card has been prepared by the competent authority.  Consent legally exercised by the complainant in favour of Rita Das for change of ownership is not available on record before us.

        Considering the facts and circumstances, we are to hold that there is gross negligence on the part of the Op in the matter of giving correct, appropriate & lawful service to the complainant

Contd…………….P/3

 

                                                                  

- ( 3 ) -

 

upon necessary payment duly received by them on account of change of name etc. Thus, the Op is liable for deficiency of service and thereby the complainant should get relief as prayed for.

        All the issues are disposed of in favour of the complainant.    

                           Hence,

                                       It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  without cost.

      The Op is hereby directed to adopt necessary measure for change of ownership in respect of the vehicle under registration No.WB68K/2408 in the name of complainant.

      The complainant is also entitled to get compensation to the amount of 30,000/- (Thirty thousand) only (Being the equivalent to the amount of interest for having not used of the vehicle purchased at the cost of 3,37,000/-(Three lakhs thirty seven thousand) only and litigation cost of 5000/-(Five thousand) only.

      The Op is directed to pay the compensation of 30,000/- (Thirty thousand) only and litigation cost of  5000/-(Five thousand) only in favour of complainant within sixty days.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                  Member              Member                                  President

                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.