Tripura

West Tripura

CC/19/2019

Smt. Mira Brahmachary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jain Udyog. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.Saha, Mr.B.Debroy.

20 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO: CC- 19 of 2019

 

 

Smt. Mira Brahmachary,

W/O. Sri Kandarpa Brahmachary,

Resident of Vill & P.O.-Ujan Dudhpur,

P.S.-Kumarghat, Pin 799288,

District-Unakoti District

Represented by her constituted attorney

Sri Kandarpa Brahmachary,

S/O.-Lt. Krishnapada Brahmachary,

Husband of Smt. Mira Brahmachary,

Resident of Vill & P.O.-Ujan Dudhpuur,

P.S.-Kumarghat, Pin-799288,

Dist.UnakotiDistrict…....................................................................................Complainant.

 

 

VERSUS

 

 

1.Jain Udyog,

A.D. Nagar, Agartala,

West Tripura,

Pin-799003

 

Represented by its authorised representative,

 

2. Jain Udyog,

Maruti Suzuki Authorised Dealer,

Dharmanagar, College Road,

Pin-799250.........................................................................Respondents / Opposite parties.

Represented by its authorised representative

 

 

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI UMESH DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SMT. Dr BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bhaskar Debroy,

Sri Pulak Saha,

Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps. : Sri Pradip Rathor,

Smt. Titu Rani Shil,

Sri Shukhendu Debbarma,

Advocates.

 

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 20/ 02 /2020

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant Smt. Mira Brahmachary, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 through her constituted attorney Sri Kandarpa Brahmachary complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps.

Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant had purchased one Maruti Dezire ZXI Car from the O.P. No.2 on 21/06/2018 on payment of full consideration amount Rs.7,18,234/- including temporary registration fee. The car was however delivered on 23/06/2018. At the time of taking delivery of the said car the Husband of the Complainant and Son of his friend namely Sri Sumit Datta enquired from the staff of O.P. No.2 about Form CR TEM and Form No.22 for getting the car registered with the District Transport Officer, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura as those documents / papers were not provided to them at the time of delivery of the car. The staff of the O.P. No.2 told them that those papers / documents would be delivered from their end in the house of the Complainant within 2/3 days. But those documents / papers were not supplied to the Complainant as assured to her husband by the staff of the O.P. No.2. The Husband of the complainant visited the showroom of the O.P. No.2 several times in such of those documents / papers but he could not get those papers / documents. It was only on 11/07/2018 one staff of the O.P. No.2 namely Sri Subhra Dey delivered those papers / documents i.e. Form CR TEM and Form No.22 in the shop of Sri Babul Datta of Nalkata, Dhalai Tripura who is friend of the Husband of the Complainant. Sri Datta however had handed over those documents to the Complainant on the same day on 11/07/2018. The Complainant has alleged in her complaint that the Temporary Registration Certificate of her car had been signed by the Registering Authority, Agartala on 27/06/2018 but it was delivered to her on11/07/2018 by the staff of the O.P. No.2 and that by that time the Transport Department, Government of Tripura had increased the road tax in manifold w.e.f 01/07/2018. According to the Complainant if she was provided with the Temporary Registration Certificate at the time of delivery of her car on 23/06/2018 or after 2/3 days as promised by the staff of the O.P. No.2, she could have got her vehicle registered with the DTO, Kailashahar Unakoti Tripura on payment of unrevised road tax amount of Rs.6,900/- instead of the revised rate of Rs.50,276/- which came into effect from 01/07/2018. The Complainant has alleged that it was due to the deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. she has suffered both mentally and financially. The Complainant further alleged that prior to the filing of the complaint she issued legal notice on 23/07/2018 through her Advocate to the O.Ps. calling upon them to pay her Rs.43,376/- being the excess amount of the road tax paid by her against her car on account of the delay caused by the O.P. No.2 in handing over the Temporary Registration Certificate to her. As the O.Ps. did not take any action on the legal notice she was constrained to filed the complaint before this Forum.

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.Ps., the Complainant has filed the instant complaint before this Forum claiming Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs from the O.Ps.

Hence this case.

2. In due course of time notices were duly sent to the O.Ps. from the Forum.

The O.Ps. through their authorised representative filed written objection denying the allegations and contentions of the Complainant. Both the O.Ps. have admitted about the purchase and delivery of the one Maruti Dezire ZXI Car to the Complainant on 23/06/2018 on payment of full consideration amount Rs.7,18,234/- including temporary registration fee. They have however denied and disputed about making any promise to deliver the Form CR TEM Certificate & Form No.22 to the complainant within 2/3 days from the date of delivery of the car. The O.Ps. on the other hand have stated in their W.O. that at the time of delivery of the vehicle the staff of the O.P. No.2 advised the complainant and her representative to collect those document / papers from the office of the DTO, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura and that inspite of repeated requests by the staff of the O.P. No.2, the Complainant and her representative did not collect those documents / papers from the office of the DTO, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura. Due to this the staff of the O.P. No.2 Sri Subhra Dey collected those documents / papers from the office of the DTO, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura and delivered the same to Sri Babul Dutta of Nalkata, Dhalai as per instruction of the complainant. The O.Ps. further asserted in their W.O. that there was no latches or negligence on the part of the O.P. No.2 regarding delivery of the papers / documents to the complainant and they are not in any way connected with the enhancement/ revision of rates of road tax on different category of motor vehicles.

Denying any deficiency of service or any sort of negligence/ latches on their part towards the Complainant, the O.Ps. urged before the Forum to dismiss the complaint.

 

2. Both the O.Ps. in response to the notices sent from the Forum made appearance through their engaged Counsel before the Forum.

EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:-

3. The Authorized Attorney of the Complainant Sri Kandarpa Brahmachary examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced 12 documents namely copy of the certificate of the registration dated 13/07/2018 for the car of the Complainant, copy of receipt issued by the O.P. No.2 in respect of car purchased by the complainant, copy of delivery chalan dated 23/06/2018 in respect of the car purchase by the Complainant, copy of the sale certificate under Form No.21 issued by the O.P. No.2 in the name of the Complainant, Copy of Form CR TEM dated 27/06/2018 issued by the Registering Aauthority, Agartala Tripura against the car of the complainant, copy of the Insurance Policy against the car of the Complainant, copy of the Advocate's notice dated 23/07/2018 address to the O.Ps., copy of the notification vide No.F.7(2)-Trans/2010(Part) dated 04/07/2018 issued by the Transport Department notifying revision of rates of road tax of different category of motor vehicle effective from 01/07/2018, Copy of Aadhaar card in the name of the Complainant, copy of the general power attorney executed by the complainant in favour of her Husband. The documents on identification have been marked as Exhibit – 1 Series. Another witness namely Sri Babul Dutta was also examined by the Complainant side as PW-2.. He has also produced 01 document viz envelop of Maruti Suzuki which has been marked also as & Exhibit-1. Both the PWs however were cross examined by the O.P. side.

​On behalf of the O.Ps., one witness namely Sri Ruchir Jain, the Authorized Representative of the O.Ps. has been examined as witness. He has produced 01 document namely letter of authorization issued by the O.Ps. in his favour. The document on identification has been marked as Exhibit -A. The said witness was cross examined by the Complainant side.

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISIONS:-

3. 1. (i) Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

      (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

We have heard arguments from both sides.

We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties, the evidence, both documentary and oral adduced by both sides.

We have also gone through the written arguments of the O.Ps.

While arguing the case Learned Advocate appearing for the O.Ps. denied and disputed about the staff of the O.P. No.2 having given any assurance to the Complainant that the CR TEM & Form No.22 would be supplied to her or to her representative within 2/3 days after the car had been delivered. It was argued that the O.P. No.2 on the other hand had advised the complainant and her representative i.e. her husband to collect those papers / documents from the District Transport Office, Unakoti Tripura. As those papers / documents were not collected by them, the staff of the O.P. No.2 collected those papers / documents from the transport office and thereafter handed it over to Sri Babul Datta, the friend of the Husband of the Complainant. Regarding the revision of the road tax by the State Government, Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. contended that the O.Ps. would not be held responsible for it.

By referring to the paragraph-3 of the Power of Attorney which has been executed by the Complainant in favour of her husband, Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. argued that the Complainant can not be considered to be a consumer as defined under section 2(d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the car which was purchased by the Complainant as per the recital of the Power of Attorney would be used for commercial purpose. In support of this argument that the Complainant can not be considered to be a Consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission reported in 1992 CPJ(1) 95(NC) in case No. First Appeal No.17 of 1991 (Super Engineering corporation Vs. Sanjay Vinayak Pant and Ano).

Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. further argued that the Complainant has not deposed before the Forum as witness. Her husband has been examined as witness by virtue of the Power of Attorney which has been executed by the Complainant in favour of her husband. According to the Learned Advocate of the O.Ps. the oral evidence adduced by the husband of the Complainant by virtue of the Power of Attorney can not be entertained as legal evidence and as such the evidence adduced by the husband of the Complainant can not be relied upon. In support of his argument Learned Advocate has referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2005(2) SCC at page 217 in case No. Appeal (Civil) 6790 of 2003 (Janki Vashdeo Bhojyani & Anr. vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors).

Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Per-contra Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant argued that the Complainant through her Power of Attorney had duly authorized her husband to file suit / case or pursue with proceedings, sign, verify plaint, written statement, petition and to appoint Pleader / Advocate on her behalf in connection with her vehicle No.TR02K0448. In this regard Learned Advocate has referred to Para No.1 of the Power of Attorney which has been executed by the Complainant in favour of her husband. Moreover, the husband of the complainant has filed the complaint before the Forum as a Constituted Attorney of the complainant. Hence, according to the Learned Advocate for the complainant the husband of the complainant had been duly authorized by virtue of the Power of Attorney to depose before the Forum in connection with the complaint filed by the Complainant.

Learned Advocate for the Complainant has contended that the complainant had purchased the car for her personal use and she did not utilize it for commercial / business purpose. The complainant as such is entitled to file the complaint as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Learned Advocate for the complainant further argued that there are sufficient evidence on record to indicate that due to the latches on the part of the O.P. No.2 in providing the Temporary Registration Certificate of the car and also Form No.22, the Complainant had to pay the enhanced rate of road tax while she got her car registered with DTO, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura. According to the Learned Advocate the O.P. No.2 ought to have furnished the Temporary Registration Certificate when the car was delivered to the complainant's husband on 23/06/2018, the necessary charges / fees for the said Certificate had already been duly paid by the Complainant to the O.P. No.2.

Learned Advocate has thus prayed for allowing the complaint and urged for awarding compensation suitably in favour of the complainant.

We have considered the arguments placed before us by both sides' Counsel.

It is evident from the case record that the Complainant purchased one Maruti Dezire ZXI Car from the O.P. No.2 on 21/06/2018 on payment of full consideration amount Rs.7,18,234/- including temporary registration fee. The car was however delivered on 23/06/2018. At the time of taking delivery of the said car the Husband of the Complainant and Son of his friend namely Sri Sumit Datta enquired from the staff of O.P. No.2 about Form CR TEM and Form No.22 which are essential for getting the car registered with the District Transport Officer, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura. Those documents / papers were not provided to them at the time of delivery of the car. The O.P. No.2 did not explain the reasons for his failure to handover the Temporary Registration Certificate of the car to the husband of the Complainant.

It further reveals from the evidence on record that the Complainant had received the temporary registration certificate & Form No.22 on 11/07/2018 and that on account of revision of road tax by the State Government w.e.f. 01/07/2018 and also for delayed handing over the Temporary Registration Certificate of the car, the complainant had to pay Rs.50,048/- for getting her car registered by the DTO, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura. Had the Temporary Registration Certificate been supplied by the O.P. No.2 to her within 2/3 days after delivery of her car she would not have to pay the enhanced rate of road tax as the pre-revised road tax was only Rs.6,900/-.

After going through the Temporary Registration Certificate we find that the Certificate was signed on 27/06/2018 by the Registering Authority, Agartala, Tripura West. So it is evident that the certificate was issued after delivery of the vehicle to the husband of the Complainant on 23/06/2018. The O.Ps. according to us was under legal obligation to handover the temporary certificate to the husband of the complainant at the time of delivery of the car from the showroom of the O.Ps. The O.Ps. as such can not shirk their responsibility regarding such lapse. Moreover, the Complainant has paid the O.P. No.2 the required fees for the Temporary Certificate before hand.

As regards the legality of the oral evidence adduced by the husband of the Complainant, we find that the Complainant had duly empowered her husband by the Power of Attorney(Exhibit-I) to pursue with her complaint. We further find that the husband of the complainant was well conversant with purchase of the subject car. He also took delivery of the car from the O.P. No.2 on behalf of the Complainant. Moreover, the husband of the Complainant has filed the complaint before the Forum as a legally constituted Attorney of the Complainant. He is thus competent enough to depose on behalf of the Complainant in connection with this case. The citation referred to by Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. regarding legality of the oral evidence adduced by the husband of the Complainant does not appear to us to govern the case in hand as the factual matrix in the referred case is distinguishable.

Regarding the contention of the O.Ps. that the Complainant can not be considered to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not seem to us convincing as the O.Ps. have failed to bring on record iota evidence to prove that the complainant had ever utilized her car for commercial / business purpose. Moreover, we find that the O.Ps. in their written objection did not take such plea. Even the Complainant's husband has not been cross examined at least by way of putting suggestion that the car of the Complainant was / is being used for commercial / business purpose. Hence, we are unable to accept the argument advanced by Learned Advocate for the O.Ps. on this count also.

After taking into consideration the evidence on record as well as the pleadings of both sides we are of the considered opinion that due to the deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.2 particularly for the delay caused in providing the Temporary Registration Certificate of the car to the Complainant, she had to pay the revised road tax which came into force w.e.f. 01/07/2018. Had the said Certificate been supplied to the husband of the Complainant on 23/06/2018 when the car was delivered from the Showroom of the O.P. No.2, the Complainant would have got her car registered on payment of Rs.6,900/- instead of the revised rate of Rs.50,048/-.

6. In view of the discussion made above, we find and hold that the Complainant has succeeded in establishing her case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We find the O.Ps. guilty of committing deficiency of service towards the Complainant. The complainant is thus entitled to get compensation / relief.

Both the issue framed in this case are decided in favour of the Complainant and against the O.Ps.

In the result, we deem it fit and proper for the sake of rendering justice and equity to the Complainant to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs.43,148/- being the difference amount paid by the Complainant as road tax for getting the car registered due to the revision of rates on road tax of different categories of Motor Vehicles. The O.Ps. are also to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant. We are not inclined to give any other relief in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant is thus entitled to get in total Rs.48,148/-(Rs.43,148/- + Rs.5,000/- ) from the O.Ps. The payment is to be made within 2 months from the date of judgment, if not, it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full.

2.  

                                      Announced.

 

SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI UMESH DAS MEMBER, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

SMT. DR BINDU PAL MEMBER, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA