In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/81/2020.
Date of filing: 10/11/2020. Date of Final Order: 09/12/2024.
Sri Nikhil Kumar,
S/o. lt. Binda Prasad,
residing at Vill. Krishnapur Dey Para,
P.O. Garalgachha, P.S. Chanditala,
Dist. Hooghly, PIN-712708. ……..Complainant
-Vs -
- Sri Sunil Kumar Singhania,
Bajaj Two Wheeler Show Room, Dankuni Bajaj,
T.N. Mukherjee Road, North Subhash Pally,
P.S. Dankuni, Dist. Hooghly, PIN-712311.
- Sri Mukesh Kumar Choudhary,
S/o. Shyam Lal Choudhury.
Bajaj Two Wheeler Show Room, Dankuni Bajaj,
T.N. Mukherjee Road, North Subhashpally,
P.S. Dankuni, Dist. Hooghly, PIN-712311.
And A-3/38, Hindmotor Colony,
P.O. Hindmotor, P.S. Uttarpara,
Dist. Hooghly, PIN-712233.……Respondents-
- Manager, Bajaj Two wheeler show Room,
Dankuni Bajaj, T.N. Mukherjee Read,
North subhash pally, P-3. Dankuni,
Dist-Hooghly, PIN 712311.…….Respondents.
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 34(1), 34(2D), 35, 36, 39 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that on 27.05.2020, he approached before the respondents company byway of visiting their registered show room, in order to purchase a Bajaj Pulsar 180(ABS) Bike, Chassis No.MD2A12DYXKCA01698, Engine No.DJYCKA45502, wherein the complainant, in order to purchase the same, has been selected the online payment mode and disbursed the purchased amount of rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand) only to the respondents authority by way of the online payment mode but the said respondents authority has not provided him a proper invoice for the said aforementioned purchase.
That the complainant states that even he has visited the show room multiple times and requested the respondents authority for invoice, but they have always been delaying the same on one pretext or other, wherein the complainant have contacted the said respondents authority several times but they never bothered to resolve the said issue of him till date.
That the complainant states that the respondent authority has miserably failed to provide a good service to the complainant, hereby causing a deficiency in service and also have committed an offence of unfair trade practice.
That the complainant states that being deprived of the proper and facilitated said invoice in respect of delivering the said product, the complainant notified to the respondent company to deliver the invoice however they have not provided any constructive reply to the complainant.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to resolve the issue by providing the proper invoice with GST for which the complainant has already paid an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the op company and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and mental harassment and agony and to pay the litigation cost.
Defense Case:- The opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that the O.P. No.1 is the Partner of M/s. Dankuns Automobiles, Authorised Dealer of Bajaj Auto Ltd., acting as the Managing Partner of the firm/ organization, and here it is noted that there is no post of the Manager in the Dankuni Automobiles, for nothing the Complainant demarcated as the O.P. No.3 in the instant case. Here it is noted that on 24/5/2020 the Complainant came to the show room of M/s. Dankuni Automobiles at T.N. Mukherjee Road (Opposite to Dankouni Municipality), Dankuni, Hooghly and took the price of Bajaj Pulsar 180 Bike like other intending customers, and the O.P. Nos.1 as well as the O.P. No.3 for and on behalf of M/s. Dankuni Automobiles issued pro-forma invoice to the Complainant mentioning the then price of the BS-VI model of that bike, amount of Rs. 1,36,830/- (Rupees One lakh thirty six thousand eight hundred thirty). But within three days the Complainant came back to the show room of M/s. Dankuni Automobiles for booking the aforesaid bike of BS-VI category. and after coming at the show room suddenly he was introduced with one of the customers Sri Mukesh Kumar Chaudhury (O.P. No.2 herein) by his (Complainant's) own interest and after a discussion with the O.P. No.2 outside the show room; the Complainant decided to purchase the Bajaj Pulsar 180 (ABS) bike BS-IV model directly from the O.P. No.2 by paying Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty thousand) changing his first taken decision to purchase Bajaj Pulsar 180 bike BS-VI model, and for which he (Complainant) paid directly to the show room of M/s. Dankuni Automobiles through online payment, in two parts, at first the Complainant paid Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) on 27/5/2020 and secondly Rs.95,000/- (Rupees Ninety five thousand) on 28/5/2020, through State Bank of India A/c. No.31835598476, for said Mukesh Kumar Chaudhury (O.P. No.2 herein), after conversation among both of them and O.P. No.1, because there was dues of said Mukesh Kumar Chaudhury (O.P. No.2) and in this way the Complainant purchased the BS-IV category bike of Bajaj Pulsar 180 (ABS) bearing Regn. No. WB18AE0234 with Chassis No. MD2A12DYXKCA1698, Engine No.D.JYCKA45502 from the O.P. No.2, not from the Dankuni Automobiles directly.
In this context, here it is also noted that BS-IV category bike selling was closed as it was obsolete by the Govt. in the last of the month of March, 2020. So, it was not possible to sale out from the show room as M/s. Dankuni Automobiles runs business as the authorised dealer of Bajaj Auto Ltd. So, the Complainant is not eligible to get invoice with GST for purchasing the said BS-IV category bike of Bajaj Pulsar 180 (ABS) bearing Regn. No. WB18AE0234 with Chassis No.MD2A12DYXKCA1698, Engine No.DJYCKA45502 from the O.P. No.2, and it is unlawful demand of the Complainant.
That it is clear that being a high profile Central Govt. employee, only to harass the O.P. No.1 as well as the O.P. No.3, also as well as M/s. Dankuni Automobiles, Authorised Dealer of Bajaj Auto Ltd., the Complainant filed the instant application, should be rejected with exemplary cost.
The opposite party No. 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that the O.P. No.2 is the old customer of M/s. Dankuni Automobiles, Authorised Dealer of Bajaj Auto Ltd. He purchased a BS-IV model of Bajaj Pulsar 180 ((ABS) bike on 28/3/2020 from said M/s. Dankuni Automobiles on credit, thereafter he insured the same on 30/3/2020 with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., and also thereafter he paid MV Tax, New Registration Fee, Showroom Inspection Fee, Service/User Charge, Transaction Fee on 31/3/2020 through Srirampur ARTO, Hooghly, Govt. Of West Bengal, and thereafter at last he got registration on 12/9/2020.
Here it is noted that on 27/5/2020 the Complainant came to the show room of M/s. Dankuni Automobiles at T.N. Mukherjee Road (Opposite to Dankuni Municipality), Dankuni, Hooghly and suddenly he met with the O.P. No.2 by his own interest and after a long discussion with the O.P. No.2 outside the show room; the Complainant decided to purchase the Bajaj Pulsar 180 (ABS) bike BS-IV model directly from the O.P. No.2 by paying Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty thousand), and on that day, i.e., on 27/5/2020 he (Complainant) paid Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) directly to the show room of M/s. Dankuni Automobiles by online at first, and thereafter the Complainant paid Rs.95,000/- (Rupees Ninety five thousand) on 28/5/2020 by online payment, through State Bank of India A/c. No.31835598476, for the O.P. No.2, after conversation among both of them and O.P. No. 1, because there was dues of said Mukesh Kumar Chaudhury (O.P. No.2) and in this way the Complainant purchased the BS- IV category bike of Bajaj Pulsar 180 (ABS) bearing Regn. No. WB18AE0234 with Chassis No. MD2A12DYXKCA1698, Engine No.DJYCKA45502 from the O.P. No.2 directly, not from the Dankuni Automobiles. And for which the O.P. No.2 signed him (Complainant) in necessary forms to transfer his name.
Here it is also noted that BS-IV category bike selling was closed as it was obsolete by the Govt. in the last of the month of March, 2020. So, it was not possible to sale out by the show room as M/s. Dankuni Automobiles runs business as the authorised dealer of Bajaj Auto Ltd.
That it is clear that being a Central Govt. Auditor, only to harass the O.P. No.2, the Complainant filed the instant application, should be rejected with exemplary cost.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant filed written notes of argument. As per the evidence on affidavit of both sides and written notes of argument of the complainant are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the ld. Advocate of the complainant heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and document produced by him.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
For the purpose of deciding the fate of the above noted three points of considerations, there is urgent necessity of making scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and there is also urgency of scanning the evidence on record. In this regard this District Commission after going through the material of this case record finds that the complainant in his complaint petition has categorically stated the fact that purchased the concerned vehicle from OP-1 and paid Rs.1,20,000/- but on the contrary the OP-2 in his written version has pointed out the fact that the complainant has purchased the said vehicle from him on payment of Rs.1,20,000/-. But fact remains that the complainant has failed to clarify the above noted controversy and / or difference in the pleadings of the parties. In this regard, it is also important to note that the complainant has also failed to produce cogent and satisfactory evidence to remove the above noted controversy. It is also very important to note that the complainant’s vehicle BS-IV category bike has been made obsolete by the Government from the last date of the month of March 2020. But fact remains that the complainant has totally suppressed this fact in his pleading. When the complainant has suppressed a vital point before this District Commission, it is crystal clear that the complainant has not come before this District Commission in clean hand. As the complainant has not come before this District Commission in clean hand, he is not entitled to get any equitable relief from this District Commission.
When the BS-IV category Bike has been made obsolete by the Government from the last day of month of March 2020, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief which has been prayed in this complaint petition. For argument sake if this District Commission allowed the prayer no.1 of the complainant for argument sake, the said award cannot be executed by this District Commission as per law as because the said award would be against a Government notification and it would be an illegal work on the part of the District Commission. So this District Commission is of the view that there is no scope of passing any award in this case which cannot be executed as per law.
All these factors are clearly reflecting that this case is not maintainable in the eye of law and also in its present form and fact and so this case is liable to be dismissed.
When this case is not maintainable in the eye of law, the complainant has no cause of action in the matter of filing this case.
Moreover, on close examination of the pleadings of the parties it is not clear from whom the complainant has practically purchased the said vehicle. So it is also not clear under whom the complainant is a consumer. When the complainant is not consumer under the OPs, this case is also not maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law.
In the result it is accordingly
ordered
that this complaint case being no. 81 of 2020 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order is passed as to cost.
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 acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
