FINAL ORDER / JUDGMENT
SMT. SUKLA SENGUPTA, PRESIDENT
This is a case U/S 13 of CP Act, 1986 filed by the complainant stating interallia that the complainant intends to purchase one bus in the name of Eicher from the OP-1 the authorised dealer of the OP-2. The OP-2 is the manufacturer. The complainant purchased the bus in question on payment of the total consideration money inclusive of loan guaranteed by the concerned bank to the OPs on 08.08.2018 and Indusind Bank, Ghatal Brach duly financed having EMI of Rs.45,000/- each commencing on and from 21.10.2018 to 21.12.2020.
The complainant further stated that the Chassis No. in question having Model No. Eicher 1212K F/L CWC ABPS (BS–IV), Chassis No. MC2Q2KRTOJB–140112, Engine No. E424CDJC204800 supplied by the OP-2 through the OP-1 being the authorized agency of OP-2 in the month of August 2018. It is alleged that the OP-1 handed over the vehicle in question to the complainant without providing the temporary registration certificate in respect of the chassis of the said vehicle.
The complainant further stated that on receipt of the chassis of the said vehicle he completed the body of the chassis on or about 8th October, 2018 but the temporary registration certificate not handed over to the complainant by the OP-1 in spite of several requests and reminder. It is alleged by the complainant that since 21.10.2018 the banker of the complainant name Indusind Bank started deduction of EMI to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per month from the account of the complainant and the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.76,292/- towards insurance of the vehicle in question. It is alleged by the complainant that since August 2018 to 25th November, 2018 the complainant several time requested the OP-1 to handover the temporary registration certificate but all in vain which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and that is termed as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
On 26.11.2018 the complainant received a whatsapp message from the OP-1 containing copy of temporary registration certificate after lapse of considerable period. Such conduct of the OPs proved that the OPs willfully and deliberately harassed the complainant and also caused financial loss to him since he was unable to registered the vehicle due to want of temporary registration certificate and he was compelled to pay the monthly installment of bank loan to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per month. Under such circumstances, the complainant compelled to file this case before this Forum with a prayer for passing a decree in favour of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant along with litigation cost.
The OPs have contested the claim application by filing two different WVs denying all the material allegations. The OP-1 in his WV stated that admittedly the complainant purchased the subject bus from the OP-1 at a consideration of Rs.12,37,000/-. Accordingly, a credit being No. CN/160818/49 dated 16.08.2018 for a sum of Rs.13,000/- was by the OP in the name of the complainant. Apart from agreed vehicle price in question of a sum of Rs.12,37,000/- as mutually agreed and as per IT Act the complainant had to pay T.C.S. @1% i.e. Rs.12,370/- but the complainant had duly paid a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- thereby the banker of the complainant paid a sum of Rs.630/- in excess on behalf of the complainant.
It is further stated by the OP-1 that apart from Rs.12,49,370/- (Inclusive of TCS @ 1% - Rs.12,370/-) as mutually agreed and as per practice prevailing in commercial vehicles industry, the customer had to pay Rs.8,000/- towards temporary registration charges and since Rs.630/- was already paid by the complainant then the complainant needs to pay a sum of Rs.7,370/- towards the vehicle in question for the temporary registration certificate.
It is alleged by the OP-1 that the complainant delayed to pay the charges of temporary registration corticated and ultimately on 26.11.2018 the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.7370/- on account of TRC charges and immediately the OP-1 issued the temporary registration certificate, so delay if any is / was there in respect of issuance of temporary registration corticated that was on the part of the complainant as he delayed to pay the TRC charges hence, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP-1 and the OP-1 never harassed the complainant. So the petition of complaint as filed by the complainant is with malafide one and the complainant has filed this case with an intention money squeeze from the OP-1 and such malafide and harrassive intension of the complainant made the petition of complaint baseless and liable to be dismissed with cost.
The OP-2 being the manufacturer of the vehicle of his chassis having model No. ICHER 1212K F/L CWC ABPS (VS-IV), Chassis No. MC2Q2KRTOJB-140112, engine NO. E424CDJC204800 from the oP-1 being the authorized agency of the OP-2 in the month of August, 2018.
Admittedly, the complainant on received of the said chassis in question of the bus completed the body of chassis of the said vehicle on or about 08.10. 2018 and alleged that the OP-1 did not issue the temporary registration certificate to the complainant in spite of several request. So, considering this aspect, the OP-2 stated that complainant has/had no cause of action to file this case against the OP-2.
It is further stated that the complainant purchased the passenger bus for commercial purpose because the passenger bus in question is a commercial vehicle. So, he is not a consumer within the ambit of 2 (d) of the CP Act , 1986. Hence, the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
On the basis of above stated pleadings, points of consideration are as follows:-
- Is the case maintainable in its present form or in law?
- Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
- Is the complainant a consumer within the ambit of 2 (b) CP Act, 1986?
- Is there any sort of deficiency on the part of the OP?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
All the points of consideration are taken up together for convenience of discussion and to avoid unnecessary repetition.
On a close scrutiny of the material on record, it appears that this forum has got territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case and it is filed well within the period of limitation. Hence, this case is maintainable.
Admittedly, the complainant purchased one passenger bus in the name of EICHER from the OP-1 who is authurised agent of the OP-2 on payment of total consideration on 08.08.2018 and the IndusInd Bank, Ghatal branch duly financed the said vehicle in question of the complainant having EMI of Rs 45,000/- each installment commencing from 21.10.2018 to 21.12.2020. The model No. vehicle in question is EICHER 1212KF/L CWC/ABPS(BS-IV) chassis No. MC2Q2KRTOJB-140112 engine No. E424CDJC204800 and the complainant purchased the said on the month of August, 2018 on payment of consideration. The complainant alleged that the OP-1 did not provide temporary registration certificate in respect of said chassis of the vehicle but the financer Induslnd bank started deduction of EMI to the tune of Rs. 45,000/- per month from A/c of the complainant as well as the complainant had to pay Rs. 76,292/- only towards the insurance of said vehicle. The complainant alleged in his petition of complaint, evidence and written argument that as the OP-1 did not issue temporary registration certificate in respect of chassis in question to him in time. He suffered financial loss which is amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
The OPs in their WV, evidence in chief and written argument have challenged that the complainant is not a consumer within Section 2 (d) of CP Act, 1986. They also challenged the jurisdiction of this forum in respect of adjudication of the matter.
Let us see, whether the complainant is a consumer or not within the ambit of section 2 (b) of CP Act, 1986 as per section 2 (d) (ii), it provides that (hires or avails of ) any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails such services for any commercial purpose)” .
Admittedly, the complainant purchased the chassis of passenger bus as mentioned above and completed the body of the same then he alleged that the OP-1 did not issue the temporary registration certificate of the chassis in question to him. So, he could not be able to ply the vehicle and suffered financial loss but it is negligent mentioned that the complainant purchased the passenger bus for commercial purpose. Moreover, from evidence on record as adduced by parties to this case, it is revealed that the complainant has another jewellary shop. So, it is not believable that the complainant purchased the passenger bus from the OP-1 only to earn his livelihood rather he purchased the same for commercial purpose to gain profit in that case section 2 (d) (ii) of CP Act, 1986 is a bar to consider the complainant as consumer.
On careful consideration of the fact and circumstances of this case and also considering the position of law, this forum is of view that the complainant is not a consumer at all as per section 2 (b) CP Act, 1986. So, when the complainant is not a consumer then the OPs cannot be termed as service providers and there is no consumer and service provider relationship between parties to this case, if that be so the question of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs does not arise at all.
On the basis of discussion made above, this forum opined that the complainant is not a consumer in the eye of law and is failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. So, he is not entitled to get any relief in this case. The case is liable to be dismissed on contest.
All the points of consideration are decided accordingly.
The case is properly stamped.
Hence,
Order
that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Copy of the judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission.
