Tripura

StateCommission

A/64/2017

Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director, Department of Health Services - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Raju Datta

14 Aug 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.64.2017

 

1. Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,
A.A. Road, Chandrapur,

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

2. Managing Director,

Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
A.A. Road, Chandrapur,
Agartala, West Tripura.

 

3. Sales Manager,

Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
A.A. Road, Chandrapur,
Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No1, 2 & 3.

Vs

 

1. Director,

Department of Health Services,

Government of Tripura,

Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura.

 

2. The Branch Officer (Transport),

Department of Health Services,
Government of Tripura,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainants.

3. Tata Motors Ltd.,

Registered office at Bombay House,
24 Homi Mody Street,
Mumbai- 400001, Maharashtra.

 

4. Mr. Nilmoy Nath,

Territory Sales Manager (Institutional Sales),

Area Office, 3rd Floor, Monal Tower,

G.S. Tower, Guwahati - 781006, Assam.

… … … … … Respondent/Opposite Party No.4 & 5.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

For the Appellants:                                                       Mr. Raju Datta, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1 and 2:                         Mr. Kushal Deb, Adv.

For the Respondent No.3 and 4:                         Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Adv.

Date of Hearing:                                                          28.06.2018.

Date of Delivery of Judgment:                             14.08.2018.

J U D G M E N T

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellants, namely, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Managing Director, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Sales Manager, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1, 2 and 3) against the judgment dated 12.09.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.45 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent no.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as complainants) directing the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 to arrange supply of Tata Star Bus Ultra immediately and also to pay Rs.1 lac to the complainants for delay in delivery of the vehicle. If the vehicle is not delivered, then the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 are directed to pay the interest on the amount paid @9% per annum from the date of supply order i.e. 18.04.2015 along with principal Rs.15,44,723/-. The opposite party no.4 and 5 (the respondent no.3 and 4 herein) shall arrange the supply of the vehicle, if the payment is duly made by the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3. Order is to be complied with within 2 months, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum. 

2. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant-opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. Kushal Deb, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the complainants i.e. the respondent no.1 and 2 herein. Also heard Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.4 and 5).  
3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-  

The respondent no.1 and 2 i.e. the complainants filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum alleging that the complainant no.1, Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura was in need of two numbers of Tata Winger Non AC Ambulance and one Tata Star Bus Ultra and accordingly supply order was placed to the opposite party no.1, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., the dealer of the Tata Motors Ltd. Advance payment of Rs.15,44,723/- was also made by the complainant no.1, Director of Health Services for supply of Tata Star Bus Ultra on 18.04.2015. Apart from the Tata Star Bus, two numbers of Tata Winger Non AC Ambulance was also invited through another supply order. Out of the two Tata Winger Non AC Ambulance, one has been received by the Director of Health Services on 23.11.2015, but the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 i.e. the appellants herein, failed to supply the said Tata Star Bus and another Tata Winger Non AC Ambulance in time. The complainant no.2, Branch Officer (Transport) of Department of Health Services sent several letters to the opposite party no.2 and 3 to supply the aforementioned vehicle along with one Tata Star Bus under separate supply order. The first letter was sent on 14.01.2016, thereafter another letter was sent on 16.02.2016. Subsequently two other letters were also sent on 05.03.2016 and 28.04.2016 requesting to deliver the above mentioned vehicles as those were required for smooth running of the health services of the State. The complainant no.2, the Branch Officer (Transport), Department of Health Services, Government of Tripura issued a letter to the opposite party no.2 to remain present in the chamber of the complainant no.1, Director, Health Services at 11.00 a.m. to discuss about the matter, but the opposite party no.2 assured to deliver the said vehicles within a short period. In reply of the letters made by the complainant no.2, the opposite party no.2 made correspondences on 30.08.2016 and 03.09.2016 where he informed that the account of the opposite party had been freezed by the IT Department for which they were handicapped and unable to make any transactions with the Bank and also requested to treat the matter sympathetically. It is also stated that the opposite party no.2 also informed the complainant that the opposite party no.1 requested the opposite party no.4 to bill the aforementioned vehicle against the huge receivables amounting to Rs.70,26,720/- lying with them since long and also enclosed an e-mail dated 17^th March, 2016 connected with the said letter addressing the opposite party no.4. It is further stated that the opposite party no.4 being the principal is also jointly and severally liable for the conduct of their agent/dealer i.e. the opposite party no.1 and 2. Cause of action arose on 18.04.2015 when the supply order was made and cheque was issued to the opposite party no.2. As the vehicle was not supplied, the complainants prayed before the learned District Forum to get back the amount with 16% interest and also compensation amounting to Rs.3 lacs and Rs.50,000/- for cost of litigation.

4. The opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 i.e. the appellants herein, filed their written statement wherein they denied the allegation made against them and also submitted that the appellants duly deposited Rs.55 lacs to the opposite party no.5 for Tata Motors Ltd. vide letter dated 24.06.2015 i.e. the opposite party no.4, the manufacturer of the vehicles, for delivery of the vehicles to the complainant, but the opposite party no.4, Tata Motors Ltd. did not supply the vehicles as ordered and claimed by the complainants. It is also stated that being bona fide dealer they requested the opposite party no.4, Tata Motors by e-mail dated 17.03.2016 to deliver the vehicles including the bus for which order was placed by the complainant after adjustment of the amount of Rs.70,26,720/- and if the Department of Health Services takes any action or any complication arises for non-supply of the aforesaid vehicles, that would be for failure of the opposite party no.4 and 5 to supply the aforesaid vehicles. 
5. Opposite party no.4 and 5, Tata Motors Ltd. and Territorial Sales Manager of the Tata Motors filed their written statement denying the claim. It is stated that payment was never made to opposite party no.4 and 5. They are not aware about the supply order. Relationship exists between the opposite party no.4 and the opposite party no.1 on ‘principal to principal’ basis. Thus the opposite party no.4 cannot be held liable for any independent act and/or omission, committed by the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3. Hence, the liability cannot be fixed on them.
6. On the basis of contention raised by the parties, the learned District Forum framed the following points for deciding the case:-

1.  Whether the O.P. Rajarshi Motors being authorized dealer failed to deliver the Tata Star Bus Ultra to the petitioner after receiving the supply order & price Rs.15,44,723/- on 18.04.15 and also after receiving the payment?
2. Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.Ps and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

7. Complainants produced Quotation of Tata Star Bus Ultra, Supply Order, Receipt of cheque dated 16.04.2015, Supply Order dated 18.05.2015, letter of attention, letter to opposite party no.4 and 5, Reminders, letter by Rajarshi Motors, letter regarding the meeting held between the complainant no.1 and the opposite party no.2. They also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, namely, Sri Gauranga Chakraborty, Branch Officer (Transport) in the Office of the Health Services.
8. Opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 submitted the letter dated 24.06.2015 addressing to Nilimoy Nath (wrongly mentioned in the cause-title as Nilmoy Nath), Territory Sales Manager (Institutional Sales), Tata Motors Ltd. Guwahati, the opposite party no.5 (hereinafter mentioned as Nilimoy Nath) and also have produced the copy of the cheque amounting to Rs.55 lacs in favour of M/s Tata Motors Ltd. and also letter dated 30.10.2015 issued by one Nilimoy Nath, Territory Sales Manager (Institutional Sales) addressing to opposite party no.1, copy of which was also sent to the Director, Health Services, Government of Tripura, Agartala. The opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 also produced the statement on affidavit of one Swapan Kumar Paul, Managing Director of Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. as D.W.1.
9. Opposite party no.4 and 5 also submitted the statement on affidavit of one witness, namely, Subhra Dutta.
10. The learned District Forum after considering the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record passed the impugned judgment.
11. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned District Forum, the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 filed the instant appeal.
12. Mr. Datta, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside and/or modifying of the impugned judgment would contend that admittedly the complainants booked/ordered for the vehicles mentioned in the complaint petition manufactured by the opposite party no.4, Tata Motors Ltd. through the opposite party no.1, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., the Authorised Dealer of the Tata Motors Ltd. and also paid the amount mentioned therein. He has again submitted that as a dealer, the opposite party no.1, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, the opposite party no.2 took up the matter immediately with the opposite party no.4 which would be evident from the letter dated 24.06.2015 written by Mr. Abhijit Pal, one of the Directors of Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. addressing to Mr. Nilimoy Nath, wherein it is specifically mentioned that “In reference to the meeting we had with Respected RM on 20.06.15 and subsequent discussion/communication had with you, we’re sending herewith the payment of Rs.55 lac vide Cheque no: 643400 dt. 23.06.15 on Axis Bank, Agartala Branch payable at Guwahati, being the part payment of Bus, Winger Ambulances (A.C & Non-A.C) of Health Deptt, which is being sent by courier today. The remaining payment will be sent shortly.” He has further submitted that being bona fide dealer, the opposite party no.1 through its Director duly requested the opposite party no.4 by e-mail dated 17.03.2016 to deliver the vehicle including the bus for which the order was placed by the complainant by adjustment for the amount of Rs.70,26,720/- which were lying with the opposite party no.4. Therefore, being the dealer, the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 discharged their duties and thus it is the opposite party no.4 and 5 who though were aware regarding the booking/order of the complainants, but did not supply the vehicles as ordered. Therefore, the manufacturer, Tata Motors Ltd. cannot shift the burden on the appellants on the ground of principal to principal. He has also submitted that Tata Motors Ltd. cannot avoid its responsibilities as they were also vicariously liable for non-delivery of the vehicles in question being the manufacturer. He has finally contended that if the manufacturer failed to supply the vehicles as ordered, then the dealer is helpless so far the supply of the vehicles ordered by the complainants is concerned. Therefore, it would be proper for this Commission to modify the impugned judgment directing the opposite party no.4 and 5 to supply the vehicles immediately as mentioned in the letter of opposite party no.5 dated 30.10.2015 so that the appellants can discharge their liabilities supplying the same to the complainants. He has relied upon a decision of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Munshi Lal Om Prakash Vs Delhi Automobiles Ltd. and others reported in 1999 (1) CCC 14 (DS) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission decided almost a similar case.
13. Mr. Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and 4 i.e. the opposite party no.4 and 5, Tata Motors Ltd. and its Territory Sales Manager (Institutional Sales) while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong as the manufacturer, Tata Motors Ltd. did not receive any payment for supply of one Tata Winger, Non AC Ambulance and one number of Tata Star Bus Ultra as ordered by the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura through its dealer Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party no.1 and 2, the appellants herein. Thus the Tata Motors Ltd. is not liable to supply those vehicles. More so, the transactions between the manufacturer Tata Motors Ltd. and the dealer Rajarshi Motors are ‘principal to principal’. Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of Tata Motors Ltd. being the manufacturer. He has further submitted that even if the dealer Rajarshi Motors paid Rs.55,00,000/- that was out of Rs.98,63,000/- as outstanding dues. He has also submitted that Tata Motors were not aware about the booking of vehicles by the complainants through the opposite party no.1 and 2 i.e. the dealer of the Tata Motors Ltd.    
14.   Mr. Deb, Ld. Counsel has submitted that the contention of the Tata Motors that they are not aware about the booking of the vehicles is totally incorrect, which will be evident from the letter dated 30.10.2015 written by one Nilimoy Nath, Territory Sales Manager (Institutional Sales) of Tata Motors Ltd. addressing to Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party no.1, copy of which was also supplied to the complainant no.1. He has further submitted that from the letter dated 24.06.2015 written by the Director, Department of Health Services, Government of Tripura, opposite party no.1 addressed to Mr. Nilimoy Nath, Territory Sales Manager (Institutional Sales) of Tata Motors Ltd., Guwahati, it is absolutely clear that regarding payment of Rs.55 lacs, the Tata Motors Ltd. were very much aware that the aforesaid amount was sent as part payment for Tata Star Bus Ultra and Tata Winger Ambulances (AC and Non AC) of Health Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party no.4 and 5 were not aware about the booking of the vehicles by the complainants through their dealer. Thus, the Tata Motors Ltd. cannot avoid their responsibilities, though Rajarshi Motors is also similarly liable being the dealer for non-supplying of the vehicles ordered by the complainants.
15. We have gone through the evidence on record from where it appears that the P.W.1 i.e. the complainant no.2 in his evidence specifically stated that the complainant no.1, Director, Health Services, Government of Tripura placed a supply order for two numbers of Tata Winger Non AC Ambulance and one Tata Star Bus Ultra to the opposite party no.1, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., the dealer of the opposite party no.4, Tata Motors Ltd. and advance payment for supply of one Tata Star Bus Ultra and two Tata Winger Non AC Ambulance was made by them, out of them, one Tata Winger Non AC Ambulance has been received, but the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 i.e. the appellants herein, failed to supply the one Tata Star Bus Ultra and other Tata Winger Non AC Ambulance. It is also stated that on repeated requests, neither opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 nor the opposite party no.4 and 5 supplied the aforesaid vehicles. The opposite parties failed to deliver the aforesaid vehicle in due time. Even after several reminders, they are still making dilly-dally. Hence, the complainants are to make the necessary arrangements for the said vehicles from other source. As such, all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to return Rs.15,44,723/- paid for supply of one Tata Star Bus Ultra. They are also liable to pay @16% interest on Rs. 15,44,723/- paid to the opposite party no.1 and compensation amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of proceeding.  
16. On the other hand, the opposite party no.2, Sri Swapan Kumar Paul, Managing Director of opposite party no.1, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. specifically stated that he had duly deposited Rs.55 lacs to the opposite party no.5 vide letter dated 24.06.2015 through Axis Bank for delivering of the vehicles to the complainants. It is also stated by the opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.4 did not deliver the vehicle to supply to the complainants and if there is any failure to supply the vehicles as ordered by the complainants, then the opposite party no.4 and 5 will be held responsible, not the opposite party no.1 and 2.
17. One Subhra Dutta had filed his examination-in-chief by affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no.4 and 5 wherein it is stated that the opposite party no.4 and 5 are not responsible for not supplying of the vehicles as ordered by the complainants. According to the opposite party no.4 and 5, they are not at all responsible as it is not a case of any manufacturing defect of the vehicle sold by the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 to the complainants herein, and the price of the vehicle in question has not been received by the opposite party no.4 and 5. But it appears from the record that the opposite party no.1 and 2 had paid Rs.55,00,000/- through cheque to M/s Tata Motors Ltd. It is also evident from the record that the opposite party Tata Motors Ltd. received Rs.55,00,000/- as sent by the opposite party no.1, the dealer of the Tata Motors Ltd. and the e-mail dated 17.03.2016 to the opposite party no.4 wherein the opposite party no.2, the Managing Director of opposite party no.1 requested for billing of two vehicles immediately against their receivables amount. For ready reference the e-mail dated 17.03.2016 is reproduced hereunder:-

       “      Request for billing 1 no. Winger Ambulance (Non.A.C.) and 1 no. Bus against our receivables

Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd.<rajarshi.motors@gmail.com>                               Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:00 PM

To nilimoy.nath@tatamotors.com

•  

 

Dear Sir,

 

We’re in receipt of a letter issued to us by the Deptt. Of Health bearing no.F.5(193)-MS/TRANSP/2014(SUB) dt. 05.03.016, wherein they have instructed us to deliver the WINGER AMBULANCE (Non-AC) and STAR BUS within 15^th March’16 positively, failing which they will take necessary action against us. The copy of the letter is attached for your ready reference.

 

Hence, once request you to kindly bill the 2 vehicles immediately against our receivables of Rs.70,26,720/- lying with you since long.

 

Please note, we won’t liable if the Deptt. of Health takes any action or any complication arising for non-supply of the aforesaid vehicles.

 

The matter may be treated with HIGH VALUE.

 

With warm regards,

 

 

Swapan Kumar Paul

Managing Director”

Therefore, it can be easily said that the Tata Motors Ltd. cannot shift the burden to its dealer after receipt of the money for non-supply of the vehicles to the complainants as ordered by them.

18. In Munshi Lal Om Prakash (supra), the complainant therein lodged a complaint before the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi stating, inter alia, that the complainant booked PAL Peugeot, manufactured by the opposite party No.2 therein through their authorised dealer, M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., the opposite party No. 1, on 05.10.1995, by depositing Rs. 25,000/-. The opposite party No.1 issued receipt regarding payment of the said amount as well as Priority Card. The dealer wrote to the complainant that the booking order was likely to mature shortly and accordingly the complainant deposited the balance amount of Rs.4,23,012.22 by cheque on 24.06.1996. The car was not delivered. The complainant therein, awaited for more than eight weeks which was indicated as the normal delivery period. The complainant also wrote a number of letters asking for refund of the amount followed by a legal notice dated 23.10.1996 and another notice dated 03.03.1997, but they failed to elicit any reply. Hence, the complainant filed the case before the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission claiming Rs.7,13,000/-. The opposite party No.1 in that case took a preliminary objection that the complainant was not covered under the definition of consumer. In that case also, money deposited by the complainant was sent to the opposite party manufacturer.

The opposite party no.2, the manufacturer therein, also took a preliminary objection that the inter se relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer were on principal to principal basis and not as principal and agent as stated by the opposite party no.4 and 5 herein. The Hon’ble Delhi State Commission considering the facts of that case allowed the complaint petition and directed the opposite party no.2, the manufacture therein, to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- in addition to pay interest etc. and also directed the opposite party no.1, the dealer therein, to refund the amount of Rs.4,23,012.22 along with 18% interest thereon and Rs.2,000/- as costs and compensation within 4 weeks of the receipt of a copy of the order.

19. In the instant case, it is evident from the letter dated 24.06.2015 written by Mr. Abhijit Paul, one of the Directors of opposite party no.1 addressed to opposite party no.5 that as per discussion with the Regional Manager, the opposite party no.1 sent payment of Rs.55 lacs vide Cheque No: 643400 dated 23.06.2015 on Axis Bank, Agartala Branch payable at Guwahati, being the part payment for supply of Bus, Winger Ambulances (A.C & Non-A.C) to the Health Department and the said amount was received by the opposite party Tata Motors Ltd. Therefore, it cannot be said that Tata Motors Ltd. is not at all responsible for non-supplying of vehicles as ordered by the Health Department when it is an admitted position that the Tata Motors Ltd., the opposite party no.4, is the manufacturer of the vehicles in question and the opposite party no.1, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., is the dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. and the Tata Motors Ltd. received the amount of Rs.55 lacs sent by its dealer for supplying of the vehicles ordered by the complainants. The contention of the Tata Motors Ltd. that it had not received any payment for supply of one Tata Star Bus Ultra and one number of Tata Winger Non AC Ambulance so ordered by the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura through their dealer, opposite party no.1 and 2 and they were not aware regarding the order placed by the complainants through its dealer are not correct as it would be evident from the letter dated 30.10.2015 written by one Nilimoy Nath, Territory Sales Manager (Institutional Sales) of Tata Motors Ltd., the opposite party no.5 addressed to the opposite party no.1 Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. copy of which was also supplied to the complainant no.1 wherein it has been specifically stated that “In reference to the Supply Order, we would like to inform you that due to the implementation of bus body code by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Govt. of India, the earlier existing variant of Tata Star Bus Ultra, 34 + 1S, BS-III will now be available as Tata Star Bus Ultra, 33 + 1 S, BS-III. The changes incorporated due to the implementation of the bus body code is enclosed herewith this letter.” meaning thereby, the opposite party no.4 and 5 were very much aware regarding the order placed by the complainants, and from the letter dated 24.06.2015 written by the Director of opposite party no.1 addressed to Mr. Nilimoy Nath, Territory Sales Manager (Institutional Sales), Tata Motors Ltd., Guwahati, the opposite party no.5, it is absolutely clear that regarding the payment of Rs.55 lacs, the Tata Motors Ltd. were very much aware that the aforesaid amount was sent as part payment for supply of a Tata Star Bus Ultra and Tata Winger Ambulances (AC and Non AC) to Health Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party no.4 and 5 were not aware about the booking of the vehicles by the complainants through their dealer. If the manufacturer did not supply the vehicles even after receipt of the amount sent by its dealer and adjusting the alleged receivables amounts asked by the dealer, the opposite party no.1, then both the manufacturer and the dealer are responsible for non-supplying of the vehicle to the party who ordered for the same.
20. If there is any dispute between the manufacturer Tata Motors Ltd. and the dealer Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. regarding any transaction on any other matters, then they can approach the appropriate Forum to settle the matter, the consumer-complainants should not suffer for their own differences. After receipt of the money and not adjusting the alleged receivable amounts, if the manufacturer does not supply the vehicles to its dealer, then how the dealer will supply the vehicles to the person ordered for it. In the instant case, from the letter dated 24.06.2015 and the cheque issued by the opposite party no.1, it is evident that the opposite party no.4 and 5 after receipt of the money did not supply the vehicles to its dealer, the opposite party no.1 and 2, as ordered by the complainants. Thus, the opposite party no.4 and 5 vicariously liable for deficiency of service. 
21. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tata Motors Ltd. the opposite party no.4 and 5 and Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 are jointly liable for non-supplying of the vehicles to the complainants and it is nothing but the deficiency of service. The learned District Forum in the impugned judgment while directing the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 to arrange supply of Tata Star Bus Ultra immediately and to pay Rs.1 lac to the complainant for delay in delivery observed that “From the documents as produced by both the parties it appears that no specific payment was made by Rajarshi Motors, O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 for the Winger Non-AC Ambulance for which supply order was given by petitioner” which is not correct as from the documents i.e. the letter dated 24.06.2015 and the A/C payee cheque issued in favour of M/s Tata Motors Ltd. amounting to Rs.55 lacs on Axis Bank, Agartala Branch, it is established that the said money was sent being the part payment of Tata Star Bus Ultra, Winger Ambulances (AC & Non AC) of Health Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala written by one of the Directors of the Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. i.e. opposite party no.1 to the Territory Sales Manager (Institutional Sales) of Tata Motors Ltd., Guwahati i.e. the opposite party no.5. The opposite party no.1 through its Director also informed the opposite party no.4 for billing the two vehicles as ordered after adjustment of their receivable amounts amounting to Rs.70,26,720/- by an e-mail dated 17.03.2016.
22. In view of the above, the opposite party no.4 and 5 are directed to supply the vehicle as ordered by the complainants through its dealer Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., the opposite party no.1 or directly to the complainant, Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment and the opposite party no.1, 2 and 3 are directed to handover the Tata Star Bus Ultra to the complainant no.1 immediately after receipt of the same from the opposite party no.4 and 5. If the vehicle is not delivered, then the opposite party no.4 and 5 are directed to pay the amount paid by the complainant through the opposite party no.1 with interest @9% per annum from the date of supply order i.e. 18.04.2015 till date along with principal amount of Rs.15,44,723/-. We also direct the opposite party no.1, Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Tata Motors Ltd., the opposite party no.4 to pay jointly Rs.1 lac (Rs.50,000/- each) to the complainant no.1, Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura, Agartala for delay in delivery of the vehicles as ordered. Order is to be complied with within three months, failing which, it will carry interest @9% per annum.  

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned District Forum is modified to the extent as indicated above.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura