IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Smti S.Bora
Member(F)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Sri P.Das
Member(Gen.)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.35/2015
1. SREE SANJIB BORAH : Complainant
Son of Benudhar Borah
Village Deepota, P.O: Deepota
P.S: Tezpur, Dist: Sonitpur, Assam
Vs.
1.Branch Manager, Auto Axis Pvt Ltd. : Opp party No.1
Commercial Vehicle Dealer
Sensuwa Haibargaon 78200 Nagaon, Assam
Appearance:
Smt Monalisha Devi. : For the Complainant
Sri Pranjyoti Saikia, Adv. : For the Opp. party
Date of argument : Not Advanced
Date of Judgment : 04-05-2017
JUDGMENT
- The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that being lured with the offer of Rs.60,000/-/-(Sixty thousand) by the opposite party as incentive in purchase of the vehicle the Complainant purchased one TATA make STAR ULTRA version Bus bearing Chassis No.MAT752005F8B05058 from the opposite party by obtaining financial assistance from TATA Motors Finance Company. The vehicle was registered with the DTO Sonitpur under number AS-12-AC-3059.In due course when the complainant insisted upon releasing the offered amount, the opposite party backtracked on its promise and took to avoiding tactics. Notices were twice sent by the counsel of the Complainant to the opposite party but in vain. Hence, the instant complaint praying relief to a total tune of Rs.100,000/- under various heads from the opposite party on ground of deficiency in service.
- Opposite party contested the case by filing written version. Denying the story of the complainant and for that matter any deficiency on its part, it has contended inter alia that the Forum at Tezpur lacks territorial jurisdiction and has thus prayed for dismissal of the case.
- Complainant along with another witness tendered their evidence-in-chief on affidavit. Opposite party declined to adduce evidence of any witness and preferred to remain content by cross-examining the complainant and his witness.
Gone through the entire materials on record . Despite opportunities given,parties have failed to advance any argument.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
i)Whether the case is maintainable ?
ii)Whether there was deficiency in service as alleged ?
iii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief ?
DECISION ON THE POINTS WITH DISCUSSION
For the sake of convenience of discussion and to avoid repetition all the points are taken up together for decision.
- Opposite party in its written version stated that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter in controversy. It has not stated specifically why this Forum lacks jurisdiction. A plain reading of the cause title of the complaint shows that the opposite party carries on business as Dealer of TATA Company at Sensuwa, Haibargaon, Dist:Nagaon outside the jurisdiction of this Forum. The Complainant nowhere has claimed that the opposite party Dealer has any branch office within the jurisdiction of this Forum. That being the position this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter in controversy.
- At this stage, assuming that this Forum has jurisdiction to decide the matter, we now want to proceed with the question of deficiency in service. As per complaint, at the time of purchase of his vehicle there was an offer of Rs.60,000/- only from the Dealer for purchasing the vehicle. But the Dealer opposite party failed to release the offered amount.
- In support of his claim of aforesaid offer complainant could produce nothing except his oral evidence. During his cross-examination complainant stated that one Mahanta told him about the offer of Rs.60,000/-. His evidence also shows that his driver Sri Madhav Das was present at that time. But neither Madhav Das nor Mahanta has been examined as witness in this case. In absence of any document or advertisement of alleged offer both Madhav Das and Mahanta are found to be most material witnesses to decide the matter of deficiency in service. As the complainant failed to examine them as witnesses, we are not in a position to accept the evidence of the complainant. On the otherhand, evidence of C.W.2 Jahnu Bhuyan, shows that he knows nothing about any assurance made by the opposite party to the Complainant.
For the reasons discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant fails to prove his case.
In the result, he is not entitled to get any relief in the case.
ORDER
Consequently, the case fails and stands dismissed on contest for want of reliable evidence. No order as to cost.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 04th day of May 2017.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered
( A.Devee)
President (A. DEVEE)
District Consumer D.R Forum,Sonitpur President
Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (P.DAS) (SMT.S.BORA)
Member Member
