IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                                       CASE No.  CC/80/2019

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                     Date of Disposal:

   28.06.2019                               09.07.2019                                 01.12.2022    

Complainant:        Rabiul Islam,

                               S/O Abdul Majit Mondal,

       Residing at Vill & PO- Sarangpur,

       P.S. Domkal,

       Dist-Murshidabad,

       Pin 742304.

-Vs-

Opposite Party:  1. Bajaj Molla Auto, Prop- Golam Nabi,

                     Vill- Bablabona, P.O.- P.T. Rasulpur,

         P.S.- Domkal, Dist- Murshidabad

        Pin- 742303.       

    2. Manager, S.S. Bajaj, Berhampore

        Katbeltala, Jalangi Road,  

        P.O.- Boalladanga,  

        P.S.- Berhampore, Dist- Murshidabad,

        Pin- 742101 (W.B.)                     

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                          :       Srabani Das

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 1            : None

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2            : Sampa Roy

           Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.     

                 Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.                        

                             Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

   SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY,  MEMBER.

   This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Rabiul Islam (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Bajaj Molla Auto and Anr.  (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

The complainant purchased a Motor Vehicle of Bajaj Platina 100 ES bearing Engine No PFYRHB63958 and Chassis No MD2A76AY6HRB75302 on 21.08.2017 from Bajaj Molla Auto (from O.P. 1). The O.P. 1 did not provide the necessary documents for the said Motor Vehicle till date though he has received a sum of Rs. 45,278/-. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission for appropriate relief.

Defence Case

After due service of the notice the O.P. No. 1 did not appear before this Commission for the reason best known to him so the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. No. 2 appeared by filing Written Version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable against him as he is no way connected with the said transactions.  So, the case is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 2.

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1, 2 & 3

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

As per petition of complaint the complainant purchased a Motor Vehicle of Bajaj Platina 100 ES bearing Engine No PFYRHB63958 and Chassis No MD2A76AY6HRB75302 on 21.08.2017 from Bajaj Molla Auto (from O.P. 1). But the O.P. No. 1 did not hand over any relevant documents regarding the said Motor Vehicle to the complainant.

The O.P. No. 2 stated that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from Molla Auto i.e., O.P. No.1 and he is no way connected in the said matter.

The complainant filed a petition at the time of argument from where it is evident that O.P. No. 1 contacted with the complainant through telephone to provide the necessary documents like registration certificate after filing of this case though the O.P. No. 1 has provided Insurance Policy in respect of the said vehicle.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us we are of the view that O.P. No. 2 is no way connected with the said sell procedure of the vehicle and the O.P. No. 1 is interested to provide registration certificate regarding the said vehicle after the registration of the said case but not before that. Here lies the deficiency on the part of the O.P. No. 1. So, the complainant is entitled to get relief. As the case has been filed through CAB, there is no need to pass any order regarding litigation cost.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 28.06.2019 and admitted on 09.07.2019. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case is allowed.

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/80/2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 and dismissed against the O.P. No. 2.

The O.P. No. 1 is directed to hand over the registration certificate regarding the vehicle within one month from the date of this order.

The O.P. No. 1 is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1000/-only to the complainant for mental paid and agony. 

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

Member

 Member                                                            Member                                        President.