This is a complaint made by one Sri Pranab Bhowmick, son of Paritosh Bhowmick, 22, Rishi Aurabinda Park, P.O.- Birati, P.S.-Airport, Kolkata-700 051 against K. B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. having its office at 63C, Bollygunge Circular Road, Kolkata-700 019, praying for (a) a direction to deliver a vehicle bearing Model of Tata Manza LS Euro IV or Manza LX on agreed price on loan to the Complainant according to the terms and conditions (b) a direction upon the OP to pay Rs.63,000/- @ Rs.7,000/- p.m. from October, 2015 to June, 2016 to the Complainant for taking custody of the Complainant’s car, (c) a direction upon the OP to deduct the amount of Rs.5,000/- paid as booking money, Rs.4,000/-as cash, Rs.1,20,000/- with banking interest from 29.9.20 till delivery of car as exchange money (d) compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and (e) litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that OP is engaged in the business of selling and servicing vehicle mainly of Tata Motors through its sales office, show room and service centre after receiving consideration amount on certain terms and conditions. One Satyabrata Das, Customer Advisor of OP visited the house of the Complainant at Rishi Aurabinda Park, North Dum Dum allured Complainant with some attractive offers for selling a car of Tata Motors bearing Model No.Manza LS. The said Advisor assured Complainant that the OP being a dealer and seller of cars will arrange loan amount for purchasing the vehicle of Tata Motors from the Finance Dept of Tata Motors.

            On being convinced Complainant agreed to purchase a car of Tata Motors bearing Model No.Manza LS paid the booking money of Rs.5,000/- on 9.3.2015 by cheque. Complainant for purchasing the said car as per the loan arrangement made by OP put signatures on certain papers, which OP advised necessary for obtaining loan.  Thereafter, OP informed Complainant that he will have to face an interview for taking permission from the Secretary, State Transport authority for getting the taxi permit for entire West Bengal. OP further took Rs.4,000/- from the Complainant. In the month of July 18, 2015 OP called up the Complainant in the show room and issued a proforma invoice dt.18.7.2015 being No.P/6268 in the name of Complainant wherein the particulars of amount relating to the car, insurance, road tax, registration, discount amount and loan of Rs.6,34,591/- was mentioned.

            OP after issuing the invoice informed Complainant on 28.7.2015 that interview is going to be held and Complainant appeared in the interview. On 9.11.2015 Complainant learnt that he has been granted his prayer by Secretary, Transport Department. However, due to negligent act of the OP Complainant failed to take delivery of the vehicle. Again Complainant was informed that he will have to come to the show room of the K.B.Motors on 9th September with his Tata Indico Marina Car and the said car is required to be inspected for assessing the amount which will be deducted as exchange value from the total money. After inspection it was agreed that Rs.1,20,000/- would be deducted from the price of Tata Motors Manza.

            OP took the old car of the Complainant in its custody. But did not handover new car. Complainant made repeated requests. But OP did not give delivery of the car of Tata Motors in exchange of the Tata Indico. Due to the negligent act of O.P., Complainant was compelled to drive other car on minimum pay basis. Before filing of this complaint; Complainant visited the office of the OP for getting further report where he was informed that his car has been sold and they will inform Complainant for solving his problem.

            Complainant is a consumer and OP is a trader and service provider. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP filed written version and stated that the complaint is not maintainable.
Further, OP has stated that there is no cause of action and this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Further, OP has stated that real fact is that Complainant suppressed before this Forum that he booked the vehicle in question on 9.3.2015and gave his old vehicle in exchange and wanted to purchase this car for commercial purposes and so Complainant approached Secretary of Transport authority. In order to get contract permits he attended the interview on 28.7.2015. Complainant directed the OP to sell his old car so that the money can be used for exchange by a new car. In the beginning, Complainant made attempt to get loan but getting difficulties he could not get loan as he is defaulter in other places. After that OP tried a lot to process Complainant’s loan from other banks. But, Complainant could not get. So, there is no deficiency in service and OP has prayed for dismissal of this case.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. Against this OP filed questionnaire to which Complainant has replied. In the reply Complainant has stated that K.B.Motors took responsibility of arranging loan. OP also filed affidavit-in-chief against which Complainant put questionnaire and OP filed reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the complaint petition.

            On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to deliver the vehicle bearing model of Tata Manza LS Euro IV or Manza LD. Further, there is no document on behalf of the Complainant to establish that he had paid cost of the vehicle and so he becomes entitled for a direction upon the OP for handing over the vehicle to the Complainant. Only an invoice is filed. That invoice does not guarantee that the Complainant has paid the money. Undoubtedly, the K.B.Motors deals with the vehicle of Tata Motors and sales it. So, this prayer cannot be allowed.

            Second prayer of the Complainant is a direction upon the OP to pay Rs.63,000/- @ Rs.7,000/- p.m. from October, 2015 to June, 2016.

            On perusal of the written version, it appears that OP has stated that as per the request of the Complainant his old vehicle was sold and the price has already been received by the Complainant. So, the question of giving compensation to the Complainant does not arise.

            Prayer (c) of the Complainant is deduction of Rs.5,000/- , Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1,20,000/- with bank interest till the delivery of the car. There is no material to establish that the price of the old car which at the instance of the Complainant was sold is still lying with the OP and hence Complainant cannot get relief or direction of deduction as mentioned in prayer (c).

            Similarly, Complainant is not entitled to any compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/272/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed on contest.