Consumer Case No.127/S/2015
Order No.7.
dt.23.06.16. The case of the complainant germane in the petition is that complainant purchased a car model Chevrolet Beat from Mrs. Sandhya Rai in the year 2015. Mrs. Sandhya Rai purchased that vehicle in the year 2011. It is alleges that Dealer General Manager, and Sales Manager, In-Charge of the MLS Auto India Pvt. Ltd. suggested the complainant that they have got a good well conditioned car which is Chevrolet Beat and price is also very less. The OP suggested the complainant to buy that car. The price was fixed at Rs.2,40,000/-. It is also alleges in para 9 of complaint that OP assured the complainant that they would change all the necessary defective parts and would install all the new parts in the car. Accordingly, the complainant decided to purchase the car. Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs.3,000/- on 03.06.2015, Rs.7,000/- on 04.06.2015, Rs.40,000/- on 15.06.2015 and lastly complainant paid Rs.1,79,400/- and thereafter again complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 16.07.2015 and in this way the complainant paid Rs.2,40,000/- (as per para 15 of the complaint). On 18.07.2015 the car was handed over to the complainant. On 18.07.2015 in the afternoon the car got stuck and technical problem found. It is also alleges that the complainant came to nearby garage and the owner of the garage declared that 70% of the machine of the car was already damaged. The complainant then went to the garage M/S J.D. Auto Service, 2nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri. The mechanic suggested to the complainant that many parts have been damaged and need to be replaced which would be costly. The complainant informed the matter to the OPs, but the OPs declined to take any responsibility regarding damaged parts as per allegation of the complainant. The complainant removed the difficulties with cost of Rs.71,292/-. The complainant served lawyer’s notice to the OPs, but the OPs did not take any action. It is alleges that the OPs have given the complainant a defective car. The OPs made fraud to the complainant. Hence, this complaint before the Forum for redressal.
The case has been heard exparte.
The complainant has filed the following documents :-
1. R.C. Book of Mrs. Sandhya Rai.
2. Money Receipt of Rs.3,000/-.
3. Money Receipt of Rs.7,000/-.
4. Money Receipt of Rs.40,000/-.
Contd.......P/2
-:2:-
5. Money Receipt of Rs.1,79,400/-.
6. Money Receipt of Rs.10,000/-.
7. R. C. Book of Sri Kausik Das.
8. Damage Parts Bill dt. 18.07.2015.
9. Damage Parts Bill dt. 09.11.2015.
10. Lawyer’s notice.
Points for decision
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reason.
All the issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.
It appears from the first Registration Certificate that the original owner of the vehicle was Mrs. Sandhya Rai. Money has been taken by MLA Auto India Pvt. Ltd. as per annexure by five money receipts. So, question arises how MLA Auto India Pvt. Ltd. can take money for the vehicle of Mrs. Sandhya Rai, as per documents filed by the complainant. There is no iota of paper to show any transaction between the Mrs. Sandhya Rai and the complainant of this case. Another invoice J D Auto service issued invoice with endorsement paid and this document dated 18.07.2015 does not support the contention of the complainant regarding defect of the vehicle in question as per description in the complaint i.e., number of registration of the vehicle. It is known to the complainant how he has connected this document to show that there was defect in his vehicle. The complainant has filed evidence-in-chief. In his evidence-in-chief, he has stated as per contention in the complaint regarding payment of money and repairing of alleged vehicle. There is no other paper to show that there is any connection between the MLA Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and the vehicle of previous owner Mrs. Sandhya Rai of the vehicle No.WB74V 5745.
From the money receipt of Rs.3,000/- dt. 03.06.2015 there is mention of Chevrolet Beat (old car). Money receipt of Rs.7,000/- dated 04.06.2015 there is mention of Chevrolet beat (old car) on behalf of
Contd.......P/3
-:3:-
Sandhya Rai. Money receipt of Rs.40,000/- dated 15.06.2015 there is mention of Chevrolet beat behalf Sondhay Rai. Money receipt of Rs.10,000/- dated 16.07.2015 there is mention of on behalf of Chevrolet beat. But in the money receipt of Rs.1,79,400/- dt. 04.07.2015 there is no mention of anything regarding vehicle name or any name.
The complainant alleges defect of vehicle. Although it is not proved by cogent evidence from whom the vehicle has been purchased or more clearly there is no iota of evidence that the complainant purchased the aforesaid number of vehicle from MLA Auto India Pvt. Ltd.
There is no Sale Letter or other documents as per rules of transfer of vehicle laid down in Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. There is no iota of evidence to show that complainant purchased the defective vehicle as per his allegation. No Mechanical Expert, no Auto Mobile Engineer or any Expert of Automobile has come forward to show the defect of the engine or in the vehicle.
If we take for consideration that the complainant has got possession of the vehicle, that may be from any person, because in the record there is no document to show who took the money for the selling of the vehicle from this complainant.
Moreover, materials in record i.e., Registration Certificate Mrs. Sandhya Rai regarding vehicle No.WB 74V 5745 it shows that vehicle was registered on 01.07.2011 and the invoice of JD Auto service dated 18.07.2015 does not show that there was defect in the vehicle. None appears to prove the contention in the invoice of JD Auto service. Accordingly, these documents produced by the complainant failed to inspire any confidence in the mind of this Forum regarding the allegation of defect in the alleged vehicle, which is deemed to be stated and possessed by Kaushik Das.
We are not dealing with legality or illegality of the transaction between the complainant and the OP and Mrs. Sandhya Rai. We are only concerned with the defect of the vehicle, but there is no material in record or acceptable and reliable evidence to find that the complainant purchased the vehicle which was defective or there is no nothing in record to establish that the original owner of the vehicle made false
Contd.......P/4
-:4:-
representation that condition of the vehicle was in good and that there had been no defect in the vehicle.
The complainant has referred five principles of law. But in this case, there is no acceptable evidence to show that at the time of purchase there was defect in the vehicle from the original owner as there is no Expert’s evidence regarding manufacturing defect at the time of purchase. So, the principle of law as stated by the complainant is not applicable in this case, as the registration certificate itself shows that the vehicle is of five to six years old.
Accordingly, after deliberation over the materials in record, we are of opinion that the complainant failed to adduce reliable evidence to prove his case as per allegation in the complaint. So, the complaint fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.127/S/2015 is dismissed ex-parte against the OPs, but without cost.
Let copies of this judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.
-Member- -Member- -President-
