This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that OP1, a dealer of the Automobiles and OP2, a financial institute are running a business for finance to purchase vehicle and complainant on 08-02-2003 purchased one Tata Magic being No.WB19F6067 from the OP1, with financial assistance from the OP2 and that was purchased for his livelihood and as an unemployed youth running a business of a Pull Car for School going children and complainant had been paying EMIs to the OP2 and as per terms and condition imposed by the OPs1 and 3 complainant paid Rs.46,000/- for registration permit and insurance and the OP3 issued a provisional receipt to the complainant.  After purchasing the aforesaid vehicle complainant started to ply the vehicle and made several requests to the OPs2 and 3 to get registered the said vehicle from the concerned authority but they did not pay any heed on it.

          Subsequently, on 14-06-2013 complainant compelled to pay fine of Rs.8,640/- to the Motor Vehicles Department for non-production of the relevant documents.   Complainant duly intimated the said incident to the OP2, thereafter, complainant paid the necessary charges and get registered the vehicle from the concerned authority for the purpose of smooth running of the said business. 

Thereafter, complainant personally visited to the OPs2 and 3 to refund back the sum of Rs.46,000/- and the cost incurred i.e. sum of Rs.8,640/- for the purpose of registration but the concerned authority sat tight and ultimately on 25-11-2013 through his Ld. Advocate complainant sent a representation for refund of Rs.46,000/- + Rs.8,640/- total Rs.54,640/- which has been paid by the complainant as find for non-supply of the registration certificate by the OPs and in the above circumstances, complainant has prayed for refund the sum of Rs.54,640/- against the OPs what they are bound to pay and prayed for redressal.

On the other hand, OP3 by filing written statement submitted OP3 took money of Rs.46,000/- only for registration as per direction of his superior Bibhas Sarkar, the Sales Manager and also according to his direction issued a hand note cash voucher of Rs.46,000/- to the complainant and he also introduced the complainant with the superior who promised to issue a cash memo from the OP1 regarding such payment but fact remains OP3 is an employee of OP1 and therefore, the complainant is not the consumer of the OP3 and thereafter no question of deficiency in service against the OP3 arise as OP3 is an innocent person and lead the life peaceful and does his duty according to the superior.

On the other hand, OP1 by filing written statement submitted that loan was sanctioned by the OP1 and OP3 is the employee (Sales Executive) of the OP1 and he has no authority to issue such money receipt.  In the order form for the convenience of customers clearly mentioned that cash should be deposited in cash counter and get receipt therefrom and said receipt is not a valid receipt and the said amount is not deposited with company i.e. OP1 and if any amount has been received by the OP3 without having any authority on behalf of the company in that case OP3 is personally liable.

It is further submitted that OP1 already filed a police case against Bibhas Sarkar, Sales Manager who cheated many customers for which the police case is pending and he was arrested and two times his bail application was rejected.  After receiving the Ld. Advocate’s letter OP1 replied and asked the complainant to apply with all the supporting documents but the complainant did not turn up and pay any heed to that.  So, OP1 had no deficiency in this regard and if the complaint would be filed by the complainant in that case OP1 ought to have taken proper steps.  So, in the above circumstances, the present complaint should be dismissed.

On the other hand, OP2, TATA Motors Finance Ltd. by submitting written version stated that they engaged in the business of providing financial assistance to the intending borrower that is the complainant on the basis of Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement and sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,88,001/- and said loan amount was to be repaid along with Rs.1,55,517/- as finance charges as per terms and regarding that amount of Rs.46t,000/- or other matter this OP2 is not anyway related so the present complaint should be dismissed against the OP2.

Decision with Reasons

On proper consideration of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the complaint and written version it is found that OP2, the TATA Motors Finance Ltd. is noway related in respect of the allegation as made by the complainant regarding the payment of Rs.46,000/- and other claim but whole allegation is against OPs1 and 3.  So, considering that fact we are convinced to hold that the present complaint against OP2 is not maintainable for which it must be dismissed against OP2.

          But relying upon the statement of the OPs1 and 3 it is clear that OP3 was the employee i.e. Sales Manager of the OP1.  Fact remains OP1 sold the vehicle being No.WB19F6067 from OP1 after paying the entire amount to the OP1 partly from his own pocket and balance with the assistant of the OP2 and admitted position is that OP1 is compelled to handover the registration certificate of the said vehicle and truth is that OP3 the Sales Manager of the OP1 received Rs.46,000/- from the complainant but ultimately OP1 did not supply the RC Book of the said vehicle for which the complainant was imposed a penalty when he went to regularize the matter in respect of the said vehicle for getting a registration certificate of the said vehicle and that allegation as made by the complainant that ultimately he was compelled to pay a fine of Rs.8,640/- for the purpose of regularizing the RC Book.  So, considering that fact it is clear that in all respect OP1 is responsible for that.  Fact remains it has become a practice of the car seller to receive money in such a fashion from the consumers and harass the customer in such a manner.  No doubt OP3 is the Sale Manager of the OP1 and when it has been received by the OP1 in that case it is the liability of the oP1 also to pay the said amount to the complainant in view of the fact that complainant paid it to the Sale Manager(OP3) at the shop cum office of the OP1 and it is admitted by the OP3 and further OP1 has admitted that another Sales Manager, Bibhas Sarkar was arrested for misappropriation of money of the customer and police case is pending against him.  May be his employee misappropriated money but for that reason customer cannot be deprived.  When admitted position is that Bibhas Sarkar was also a Sales Manager of the OP1 and present OP3 was also a Sales Manager of the OP1 and that is admitted position and now, OP1 cannot deny under any circumstances that he has no liability for any sort of misappropriation made by his employees like Bibhas Sarkar or OP3.  Truth is that for the laches and negligence on the part of the OP1 and his employee the complainant did not get the RC Book of the said vehicle for long period and for which complainant personally took initiative and paid the entire amount for registration.  He was compelled to pay another amount as fine i.e. Rs.8,640/- and accordingly he paid Rs.54,640/-.  Then it is the liability of the OP1 to pay it because complainant deposited the sum in the shoproom cum office of the OP1 and OP1 as a sales officer received the sum.  So, in the above circumstances, it is the liability of the OP1 including OP3 to refund the sum jointly and severally.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a of Rs.5,000/- against the OPs1 and 3 jointly and severally but same is dismissed without any cost against OP2.

          OPs1 and 3 jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay Rs.54,640/-(Rs.46,000/- received by the OP3 the employee of the OP1 for the purpose of registration + Rs.8,640/- paid as penalty for non-supply of RC Book in time by the OP1 to the complainant)  to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order failing which for each day’s delay OPs1 and 3 will jointly and severally shall have to pay penal interest  at the rate ofRs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected same shall be deposited to this Forum Account “To the President D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata Unit-II” positively.

          OPs1 and 2 are hereby directed jointly and severally to pay the decretal dues within stipulated period failing which penal action shall be started against them for which they shall be further imposed penalty and fine also.