Date of filing :16.06.2017
Judgment : Dt.18.4.2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Sri Rajeev Chowdhury alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred OP hereinafter) namely (1) Machino Techno Sales Ltd., (2) Sri Manab Kumar Ghosh, (3) Jomin Jose and (4) Regional Transport Authority.
Case of the Complainant in brief is that being intended to exchange his car having Regd. No.WB-02P-0267 through the OP No.1, the Complainant handed over the said car along with all documents against which the OP No.1 issued a delivery note. It is stated by the Complainant that the exchange price of the said old car was settled at Rs.55,000/- and a car loan quotation for a new car having net price of Rs.3,47,400/- was provided to the Complainant by the OP No.1. The Complainant has stated that he accepted the quotation and thereafter the OP No.2 went to his office for putting signature some documents relating to the transfer of the car in favour of OP No.3 and the Complainant did the same accordingly. It is specifically stated by the Complainant that all on a sudden he received a notice dt.18.7.2016, from the office of the Commissioner of Police, Howrah Police Commissionerate that the car of the Complainant had committed offence under section 119/177 of the M.V Act, as it was driven by Jibin M Philip for which the Complainant was held liable to be penalized as per provision of law and, under such circumstances, the Complainant had no other alternative but to pay penalty of Rs.850/- to avoid for punishment of 3 years imprisonment. The Complainant has stated that he served notice dt.8.5.2017 upon the OP No.1 stating the above mentioned fact. According to the Complainant that dereliction of duty and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2 make the Complainant suffering from harassment, mental agony and financial loss. The Complainant has prayed direction upon the OPs to take initiative to transfer the ownership of car No.WB-02P-0267 and to pay compensation and litigation cost to the Complainant.
The Complainant has annexed car loan quotation, delivery note, Form 29, Form 30, letters to the Zonal Manager dt.22.6.2015, 29.6.2015 Notice dt.19.2.2015 u/s 133 of M.V.Act, letter dt.8.5.2017 to RTA.
Notices were served but the OP Nos.3 & 4 did not appear. So the case was proceeded ex-parte against them vide order No.5 dt.21.9.2017.
The OP Nos.1 & 2 contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation stating inter alia, that the OP No.2 is the Manager under OP No.1 and the OP No.1 is Authorised dealer of Maruti Car Company who sold a car having model Maruti Alto LXI after exchange of a vehicle having registration No.WB-02UP-0267 providing bonus for exchange to the Complainant issuing a delivery note on a printed form to the Complainant whereby the OP No.1 agreed to take full responsibility of the said Maruti 800 and the Complainant agreed to take full responsibility in helping for change of ownership. It is further stated by the OP Nos.1 & 2 that subsequently the OP No.1 sold the said Maruti 800 to the Richie Motor on behalf of the Complainant as per instruction of the Complainant and the relevant forms signed by the Complainant were handed over to the Richie Motor along with copy of delivery note and as such it is apprehended by the OP No.1 the said vehicle might have been sold to one Jomoin Jose by the Richie Motor against consideration.
It is further stated by the OP No.1 that the OP No.1 took part as an agent for selling the vehicle in question to Richie Motor and not to the Complainant nor did the OP No.1 provide any service to the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant is not a Consumer. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Points for determination
- Whether Complainant is a consumer under the OP(s).
- Whether the OPs have deficiency in providing service.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Point No.1 : Admittedly, the OP No.2 being the Manager under OP No.1 which is an authorized dealer of Maruti Car Company old a car/vehicle having model Maruti Alto LXI after exchange of a vehicle bearing Registration No.WB-02UP-0267 after giving exchange bonus to the Complainant.
It is admitted that the OP No.2 received agreed consideration amount for the same paid by the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant has become consumer under the OP Nos.1 & 2.
Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2 : The Complainant claimed to have deposited his old car having registration No.WB 02P 0267 with the OP No.2 to exchange the same for an amount of Rs.55,000/- and signed form No.29 and 30 under Rule 55(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act for transfer of ownership of the said vehicle to a new buyer. It is also claimed by the Complainant that after receiving possession of the said vehicle the OP No.2 on behalf of the OP no.1 issued a delivery note to that effect on 15.05.2014 at 5 p.m. shouldered all responsibilities of the said vehicle therefrom.
The copy of delivery note filed by the Complainant shows that the it is stated therein “From today onwards I/We would be fully responsible for all sorts of damage claims, accidents, thefts, civil or criminal liabilities from the time and date of delivery of vehicle”, such declaration on the part of the OP No.1 substantiates such claim of the Complainant.
It is further observed that in spite of such undertaking on the part of the OP No.1 the Complainant has received a notice dt.18.7.2016 from the office of the Commissioner of Police, Howrah Police Commissionerate to the effect that the Complainant had committed offence under section 119/177 of the M.V.Act and as such he had to pay Rs.850/- towards penalty to avoid punishment for 3 months imprisonment. It is evident that the OP No.1 undertook all liabilities of the said vehicle on 15.5.2014 but the Complainant held liable for offence, committed by his car on 18.7.2016 and, therefore liability of the same fixed upon the Complainant which is an example of deficiency in providing service by the OP Nos.1 & 2.
Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
Point No.3
The Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OPs to take initiative to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question. This Forum, however, is not competent to pass any such direction compelling a person to sell the same to someone else. The Complainant also prayed for direction upon OP Nos.1 & 2 to pay compensation and litigation cost. As regards this, we are of opinion that an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and a further Rs.7,500/- will just and proper towards compensation and cost of litigation.
Point No.3 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the Consumer Complainant does not succeed.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/327/2017 is allowed on contest in part with cost against OP Nos.1 & 2 and dismissed ex-parte against OP Nos.3&4.
The OP Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order.
The OP Nos.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.7,500/- towards cost of litigation within aforesaid period, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. for the default period.
