Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission.
BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the Complainant is a permanent inhabitant within this Jurisdiction. The O.P. is the authorized main dealer, sellor and service provider of motor bike, at above mentioned address within the District- Purba Medinipur, O.P. is running his said business. The Complainant has no fair knowledge about motor cycle/model, papers etc. and first time he came to O.P’s showroom to purchase a bike for his necessity. The Complainant met with O.P. and disclosed before him that, he wanted to purchasea new and top model motor cycle (BS-vi) for his purpose. After discussion about purchase of a motorcycle/scooter (Activa Scooter Bharat Stage VI series) new model from O.P. member and O.P. agreed to deliver on 02.06.2020. As per discussion on dated 02.06.2020 the Complainant sent his brother-in-law Sk. Taslim Aktar to receive/purchase the Complainant’s vehicle from Showroom of O.P. After receivingRs. 73,785/- op issued receipt dated 02.06.2020, O.P. sold (re-sale) old model and 2nd hand motorcycle/scooter to the Complainant instead of new model BS-Vi series/new vehicle. O.P. issued money receipt & road challan but he did not give warranty card/manual coupon etc. in connection with the vehicle and O.P. tactfully suppressed it due to lack of knowledge of SK Taslimabout vehicle, he relied upon O.P. On the same day the complainant came to know that schedule motorcycle/scooter already ran 135 Kilometers and O.P. intentionally, deliberately, willfully delivered old model “BS-IV series” vehicle ( production of which was stopped by the authority ) instead of new model/new vehicle “BS-VI series” vehicle. On next day 03.06.2020 the Complainant met with O.P. member and made objection about above mentioned matters and also request to O.P. member for taking return of the vehicle from the Complainant which is illegally sold and deliver a proper/specific motorcycle/scooter to the Complainant but in vain. After long days no fruitful result came out from the O.P. lastly the Complainant went to Contai ARTO office for taking information about schedule motorcycle/scooter and surprisingly the Complainant came to know that schedule motorcycle/scooter already registered in the name of O.P. Company and O.P. used the same for his purpose. The Complainant got confirmed that O.P. willfully, deliberately sold 2nd hand as well as backdated BS-IV motorcycle/scooter to the Complainant. On 04.06.2009 the Complainant lodged a complaint before CAFBP Tamluk against O.P. member and prayed to exchange the scooty. The CAFBP took up complaint but OP did notreponse any more. After several tagid and request to O.P. member for exchange schedule vehicle and give BS-VI series motorcycle/scooter to the Complainant but invain. The Cause of action arose of this case on 02.06.2020 within this Jurisdiction.Hence, the complainant has prayed for directing the op for providing motorcycle/scooter Bharat Stage-VI series by exchange of schedule vehicle otherwise for returning the full amount for vehicle of Rs. 73,785/- to the Complainant against the vehicle, for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony, for litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- and for other reliefs as the Complainant is entitled to get as per law and equity.
Notice of the case was served upon the op; despite service of notice op did not contest the case. The proceeding of the case ran exparte against the op.
Points for determination are:
1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused and assessed the affidavit of the complainant, evidence of complainantalongwithdocuments.
Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that the complainant being a consumer has alleged deficiency in service against the op-; the bundle of facts indicate that this case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
Now, on careful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record, it appears that the complainant has failed to prove his allegation that after discussion about purchase of a motorcycle/scooter (Activa Scooter Bharat Stage VI series) new model from O.P. member and O.P. agreed to deliver on 02.06.2020. As per discussion on dated 02.06.2020 the Complainant sent his brother-in-law Sk. Taslim Aktar to receive/purchase the Complainant’s vehicle from Showroom of O.P. After receiving Rs. 73,785/- op issued receipt dated 02.06.2020, O.P. sold (re-sale) old model and 2nd hand motorcycle/scooter to the Complainant instead of new model BS-Vi series/new vehicle. O.P. issued money receipt & road challan but he did not give warranty card/manual coupon etc. in connection with the vehicle and O.P. tactfully suppressed it due to lack of knowledge of SK Taslim about vehicle, he relied upon O.P. On the same day the complainant came to know that schedule motorcycle/scooter already ran 135 Kilometers and O.P. intentionally and deliberately.The complainant has failed to establish that he took step to obtain RC in his name at all. He has failed to prove that he made a contract with op for purchasing BS-VI Model motor bike. As the complainant did not visit the show room of op personally he is not supposed to know about the nature of discussion and transaction were made. The complainant has failed to prove any element of unfair trade practice against the op. As such he is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Both the points are decided accordingly.
Thus, the complaint case does not succeed.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the CC/219 of 2020 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the OP. No order of costs is passed.
Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the complainant and the OP free of cost.
