Date of Filing: 12.6.2017
Date of Judgment: 2.2.2022
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint was filed originally by the complainant Dulalendu Chatterjee (since deceased and his legal heirs i.e the present complainants namely 1.Smt. Chhaya Chatterjee, 2.Kakoli Banerjee, 3.Dibyendu Chatterjee and 4.Shirshendu Chatterjee being substituted) against the Opposite Parties ( referred to as O.Ps hereinafter) namely 1) Machino Techno sales Ltd. 2) Sri Swapan Kumar Banerjee and 3) Taxing Officer, Public Vehicles Dept., alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
Case of the complainants is that late Dulalendu Chatterjee sold his ambassador classic car to O.P no.1 against consideration of Rs. 95000/-only. He handed over all the necessary documents to O.P no.1 on the same date i.e on 27.4.2014 along with 2 keys. He even handed over form 29 and 30 for registration for transfer of ownership. O.P no.1 handed over a delivery note to the complainant on 27.8.2014. Complainant was never intimated about the sale of the said vehicle upto 03.04.2017 and it was the original complainant himself collected the information from O.P no.1 and intimated the same to the Registering Authority on 04.04.2017. On 24.9.2016 complainant received a summon from Lok Adalat that the said sold car had violated the Motor Vehicle Rules. A notice dated 20.08.2016 was also received by the complainant from the D.C Traffic , Kolkata Police asking for payment of fine which was also complied by the complainant . thereafter complainant also intimated this facts to O.P no.1. He also informed to the Lok Adalat and different authorities including Dy. Commissioner of Traffic, Kolkata Police that he sold the car and had handed over all papers to O.P no.1. Complainant has been harassed and insulted. Even the O.P no.2 has not given any notice for purchasing the old car of the complainant to the registering authority. So, the present complaint has been filed ,praying to direct the opposite parties to record the name of the new purchaser before the Registering authority as per Motor Vehicle Rules, to intimate the same to the Dy. Commissioner of Traffic Police and for payment of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
Complainants in support of their claim filed a delivery note dated 27.8.2014 , copy of confirmation of sale, notice of Lok Adalat, copy of letters sent by the complainant to different authorities and letter sent by O.P no.1 dated 5.10.2016.
Opposite party no.1 has contested the case by filing the written version contending specifically that neither the complainant is consumer nor O.P is service provider and so the complaint is not maintainable under C.P Act. It is further contended that O.P no.1 is authorized dealer of Maruti Car and sold a car Maruti Swift Dzire after exchange of an ambassador car after giving exchange bonus to the complainant. Thereafter O.P no.1 sold the said ambassador to Riche Motors on behalf of complainant. So, the O.P no.1 took part only as an agent of the complainant to sell the old ambassador and not a seller or service provider of the said ambassador car to the complainant. So, the O.P has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
O.P no.2 has also contested the case by filing the written version contending inter –alia that he purchased the car from the complainant Dulalendu Chatterjee via a co-ordinator namely RITCHE MOTORS on 30.8.2014 and got delivery of the car on 2.9.2014. He does not know the O.P no.1. Subsequently O.P no.2 sold the car to one Anil Kumar Shaw on 30.10.2014. Thus, O.P no.2 has also prayed to expunge his name or to dismiss the case.
O.P no.3 who was added as party during trial of the case also filed written version specifically stating therein that the ambassador car since stood in the name of complainant as registered owner, he had no option but to demand the tax from the complainant as road tax was not paid after 05.12.2015.
So, the following points required determination:
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act ?
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no. 1
O.P no.1 has specifically contended that the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. To determine the same, it would be appropriate to highlight that the provision of the C.P Act reveals that a person claiming himself as a consumer of goods should satisfy that the goods are bought by him for consideration. In this case it is apparent that the complainant did not buy the subject vehicle but he sold the same to the O.P no.1 at a consideration price of Rs. 95000/-. So, if the complainants have not bought the goods /vehicle or have not hired or availed any service of O.P no.1, he cannot be a ‘Consumer’ under the C.P Act. Section 2 (o) of C.P Act, 1986 and Section 2(42) of the Act of 2019 define the ‘service’. ‘Service’ means any kind of service which is made available to the consumers for their use for payment of consideration. The payment of consideration is requisite element to bring the case within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act which is missing in this case. Complainant has not claimed anywhere that he had hired the service of O.P no.1 in any manner. It is not even his case that he hired the service of O.P to sell the subject vehicle for him. On the contrary according to him, he sold the ambassador car to the O.P no.1 and handed over the relevant papers. O.P no.1 while re-selling the same did not take the appropriate step for registration relating to transfer of ownership and so for violation of M.V Rules complainant is being sent the notices by Traffic Police. But for non-compliance of such statutory obligation under M.V Rules by O.P, complainant may have reliefs before other Forum but to bring the case within Consumer Protection Act, since ‘complainant has to be a consumer’ and the O.P a service provider, which is lacking in this case, complaint is not maintainable before this commission.
Thus point is answered accordingly.
Point nos. 2 & 3:
In view of the discussions as highlighted above as this case is not maintainable before this Commission, rest of the points become redundant and thus needs no discussion.
Hence,
ORDERED
That CC/305/2017 is dismissed on contest.
