Author-SHRI RABIDEB MUKHOPADHYAY, MEMBER
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The Complainant stated that he purchased a bike model no.KTM duke 2017-18 (black, white and orange combination). The Complainant took bank loan on 07.09.2018 and EMI started on 05.10.2018. The Complainant stated that the OP said, the bike was to be delivered within 3 days from the date of purchase (10.09.2018)but the showroom delivered the bike on 01.10.2018 with tax papers, purchase bill and insurance paper. The OP gave wrong registration paper (in the name of Arnab Dutta Chowdhury) and the Complainant said that he had repeatedly contacted the show room but they did not do anything, only the OP told by phone, message dated 17.10.2018 to give the papers to the Complainant. They told to make the registration at Kasba RTO butthey made registration at Baruipur RTO.
The OP promised for registration no. of the bike within 7 days from the date of purchase but till date no registration has been made. When the Complainant contacted OP, they told that registration is completedat Baruipur RTO office but Complainant’s documents belongs to the jurisdiction of Kasba RTO.For this reason the Complainant fails to take ride on the bike and go to any other place and his work life is harmed.
The Complainant prayed for direction upon the OP to refund the EMI amount of Rs. 95,000/- and to extend the warranty period.
No Written Version has been given byOP
Points for Discussion
1) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under the OP;
2) Whether the OP is deficient in rendering service to the Complainant;
3) Whether the Complainant deserves relief.
Decision with Reasons
1) At the outset, it is to be mentioned that notice of this Forum was delivered upon the OP on 15.01.2019 but no steps have been taken by the OP for filing W.V. The case ran exparte as per rule, for indifference of the OP from the ongonging proceedings of the case.
2) It is the settled principle of law that when a party, in spite of getting opportunity to defend its case, does not do so, it is on the default side and its leverage goes to the other party (here the Complainant). It is presumed that the OP has no say against the allegations leveled by the Complainant. The affidavit of evidence filed by the Complainant also remained uncontroverted/ unchallenged.
3) As per copy of Receipt/Application No. WB95D18090000756/WB18091186102302 for Rs. 18,373/- issued by Bidhan Chandra Halder on behalf of the OP, it appears that the Receipt has been issued in the name of ARNAB DUTTA CHOWDHURY, not in the Complainant’s name. It is deficiency on the part of the OP.
4) The Insurance policy Bearing No. OG-19-2401-1826-00000262 (valid from 13.09.2018 to 12.09.2019) has been issued to MITHUN PRAMANIK, the Complainant, by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. against Insurance premium of Rs. 23,249/. Name of MISP has been stated to be Chandrani Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (the OP) in the Policy Schedule.
5)The invoice No. MB-116/18-19 date 13.09.2018 has also been issued in the name of the Complainant, showing total value of Rs. 2,43,097/-. The OP received Rs. 25,200/- for new registration of the bike vide Receipt No. WB95D 18090001060 dated 20 September, 2018 as revealed from Message dated 20.09.2018. The Message on the same date at 7.38 P.M. shows that RC under preparation by Baruipur AR TO.
6) In response to Complaint Ref. No. 444632, one, VinayakNayar sent mail to Mahadev Das narrating the delay of Registration by the R.T.O due to his duty at Gangasagar Mela, leave for puja and missing of the file.Said Mahadev Das (7603063350) sent Message asking the Complainant to collect the number plate.Fitting date was stated on 12 February, 2019.
7) The Complainant submitted under Affidavit both in the Complaint and in the Evidence that all documents were verified by the OP in respect of Kasba R.T.O. but OP filed those documents for registration under Baruipur R.T.O., that too has not been given to the Complainant till date of lodging Complaint. The Complainant stated at para-5 of evidence that OP advised him to ride on the bike and if police intervened the Complainant might show the Messages. No proof for such statement (para-5 of Evidence) has been furnished by the Complainant but the same has been submitted under Affidavit and there is no denial on the part of OP as well.
8)It remains the fact one should not drive a bike or car without valid registration documents obtained from the competent authority.
It also remains the fact that as the Complainant cannot avail himself of the services of the bike, the insurance coverage also goes in vain in spite of making full payment. The prayer for refund of EMIs cannot be discussed as it involves a 3rd Party which has not been made a Party by the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant also prayed for execution of warranty period of the said bike.
In a nut-shell, the OP is severely deficient in rendering assured and promised services to the Complainant, in terms of Section 2 (1)(g) read with Section2 (1)(o) the C.P. Act, 1986. The Complainant having paid EMIs of price of the car and other charges including charges for registration, to the OP, is a consumer under the OP in terms of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii)of the Act.
So, the Complainant deserves some relief.
In the Circumstances of above analytical observation, we are constrained to pass
ORDER
That the Complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against the OP in terms of Section 13 (2) (b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;
That the OP represented by its proprietor is directed to arrange registration of the KTMDUKE 390 Bike in the proper jurisdiction of Kasba R.T.O. in favour of the Complainant/Purchaser and to hand over the new R.C. Book within 30 days from the date of this Order;
That the OP represented by its proprietor is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation under Section 14 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 for physical harassment, mental agony, frustration and loss of insurance coverage and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this Order;
That non-compliance of above Orders by the OP within the stipulated period of 30 days shall entitle the Complainant to put the Orders into execution under Section 27 of the Act ibid;
Let copy of the Judgment be handed over to the Parties when applied for.
