DATE OF FILING : 26-08-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 16-09-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 10-09-2014.
Prof ( Dr. ) Nikhil Ranjan Pal,
son of late Narendra Nath Pal,
resident of Dutta Bagan, Pears Bagan Road,
P.O. Hooghly, P.S. Chinsurah,
District – Hooghly,
PIN – 712103.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Kishan Kumar Bhaniramka,
Managing Director, Concord Hyundai,
Concord Automotives Pvt. Ltd.,
of NH – 6, NIbra, Salap – II,
P.O. & P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711403, and resident of
Tank No. 7, BJ – 85, ‘Kathgola Island’ 2nd floor,
Salt Lake, Sector – II,
Kolkata – 700091.
2. The Managing Director,
Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,
registered office and factory at
Plot no. H-1, SIPCOT, Industrial Park,
Irrungattu Kottai, Sriperumbudur,
Taluk District – Kanchipuram,
Tamilnadu – 602117.
3. The Senior Branch Manager,
Bank of India, Chinsurah Branch, Dutta Super Market,
Akhan Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Chinsurah,
District – Hooghly,
PIN – 712101.------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to make over the original papers namely sale letter, tax token, permanent registration certificate, insurance certificate etc. and to pay Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation for causing harassment, mental pain and for damages for rendering the car sold to remain idle and unusable together with payment of litigation costs of Rs. 20,000/- as the o.ps. in spite of booking of the car on 14-08-2012 and payment of the entire purchase money on 28-08-2012 did not deliver the original papers as aforementioned even within 8 months of the sale of the car rendering it unusable and roadworthy.
2. The o.p. no. 1 did not file written version in spite of repeated reminders. So the complaint was heard ex parte against him.
3. The o.p. no. 2 in his written version contended interalia that the delivery of the
relevant papers as claimed rests upon the o.p. no. 1, the dealer, and as such he has no responsibility for the failure to supply of the same.
4. The o.p. no. 3 bank though filed a petition challenging the maintainability of
the instant complaint also filed written version and contended interalia that he advanced the cost price as loan direct to the dealer and has been recovering the EMIs as per bank rule. So the complaint should be dismissed.
3. Upon pleadings of parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the car in question was delivered to the complainant by o.p. nos. 1 & 2 after about 8 months of the receipt of the price without the original connected papers. Such original papers relating to the car was delivered to the complainant after filing of this complaint exhausting the major period of warranty. Unfortunately, for want of original papers the car was unworthy of use on road. This conduct on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 amounts to unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service. Be it mentioned that the complainant collected the original relevant papers through the intervention of Lalbazar.
5. The o.p. no. 3 in spite of knowing the predicament of the complainant and knowing fully well the purport of the letter dated 14-01-2013 arbitrarily deducted Rs. 5,000/- from the account of the complainant as legal charges. If the o.p. no. 2 did not feel the problem of the complainant sympathetically, it is altogether unfortunate on the part of the complainant. It ought to have been the duty of the o.p. no. 3 to reschedule the payment of EMIs as the payment of price of the car to the o.ps. was made direct from the bank though the car was not at all handed over to the complainant.
In the result, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 299 of 2013 ( HDF 299 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no. 2 and allowed on contest without costs against the o.p. no. 3 and allowed ex parte with costs against the o.p. no. 1.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for non delivery of the original documents of the sold car in due time.
The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 be further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain, prolonged harassment and for rendering the car unworthy of use on road for long 8 months and to pay litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 be directed to pay the total sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as mentioned above to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
The o.p. no. 3 bank be directed to reschedule the payment of EMIs and adjust the amount of Rs. 5,000/- deducted arbitrarily for no fault of the complainant within one month from the date of this orders.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
