DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO.289/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
13.05.2016 17.05.2016 06.03.2017
Complainant = Vs. = O.P.
Sujata Mondal, 1. Mahindra and Mahindra
D/o. Late K. Mondal, Financial Services Ltd,
Vill and P.O. Debalaya, Second Floor, Maitre Bagan,
P.S. Deganga, Near Das Auto, Basirhat,
Dist- North 24 Parganas, Dist- North 24 Pgs,
Pin-743424. Pin-743412.
2. Shree Automotive Pvt. Ltd,
Showroom at Ved Bhumi,
Koyla Vihar, VIP Road,
(Next to Haldiram),
Kolkata-700059.
3. Barasat Branch of Mahindra
and Mahindra Financial
Services Ltd,
Jessore Road, 22A, Barasat,
Adidas Store, Kol-700127.
P R E S E N T :- Pradip Kumar Bandyopadhyay…President
:- Sri. Rabideb Mukhopadhyay ….….Member
J U D G E M E N T
This case has been filed by the complainant- Sujata Mondal on 13.05.16 under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd and others.
The facts of the case, to put in a nutshell are as below:-
The complainant had purchased MAXIMO Car (Light Goods Class) which was delivered to him on 19.05.2011. Registration was done. But the duplicate key was handed over to O.P. no.2 Sri Automoative Pvt. Ltd. No demand letter for invoice was sent by O.P. No.2.
The O.P. No. 2 handed over the invoice as claimed in the application to the complainant (vide order 10 dated 28.02.2017 at the time of argument).
The duplicate key is lying with O.P. No.2 which was not returned to the complainant in spite of the fact that entire loan was repaid by her.
Dictated and Corrected Contd…..2/-
C. C. Case No.289/2016
- :: 2 :: -
The complainant has alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Nos.1, 2 and 3.
The O.P. No.2 has contested the case by filing the W.V on 30.12.16. O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 did not turn up to contest the case.
The O.Ps’ case are as below:-
The complainant has no locus standi to file the case. The case is false and frivolous. There is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. No.2.
From the pleadings of the parties the following points have been framed for decision:-
1). Is the complainant a consumer?
2). Is the O.P deficient in service?
3). What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
Reasoned Decision
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and convenience. Before we discuss the points, let us look at the documentary evidence.
The following documents have been filed by the complainant:-
1). Delivery Challan of Shree Automotive Pvt. Ltd dated 19.05.2011.
2). Proposal Form dated 17.05.2011.
3). Certificate of Fitness of Motor Vehicles Department dated 19.06.2015.
4). A letter of Mahindra Finance dated 17.06.2015.
5). Certificate of Registration dated 20.05.2011.
6). Advocate,s letter dated 10.03.2016.
7) Three track report dated 21.07.2016 and 23.07.2016.
The Evidence-in-chief was filed by the complainant on 30.12.2016. The supplementary E. Chief was filed by the complainant on 21.02.2017.
The evidence-in-chief was filed by the O.P. No.2 on 30.12.16.
The BNA was filed by the complainant on 28.02.2017. The BNA was filed by the O.P. No.2 on 06.03.2017.
We have perused the evidence on record and the BNA filed by both parties along with documents.
Dictated and Corrected Contd…..3/-
C. C. Case No.289/2016
- :: 3 :: -
In the BNA filed by the O.P. No.2 it has been argued that invoice has already been given by O.P. No.2.
It is admitted position that duplicate key is lying with the O.P. No.2. Now comes the question of deficiency in service.
It is also admitted position that O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 should have handed over the key to the complainant. The delay in claiming the invoice and the key cannot in any way take way the right of the complainant.
O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 should have returned the blank cheques of UBI to the complainant and the duplicate key of the vehicle. By not doing the same they have committed deficiency in service. Their action comes as contemplated in the C.P. Act, 1986.
Now the question is whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation. The complainant being the spinster was harassed by O.P. Nos. 1 and 3.
O.P. No.2 should have sent all the due documents to the complainant. Hence, we award compensation of Rs. 4,500/- which shall be paid by the O.P. Nos. 1,2 and 3 jointly and severally, rather they should pay Rs. 1,500/- each to the complainant.
Hence
Ordered,
that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the O.P. no.2 and ex parte against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 3.
The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 4,500/- jointly and severally rather they should pay Rs. 1,500/- each to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which amount shall carry 6% interest thereon from the expiry of stipulated time till its realization.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 are directed to return eight blank cheques of the UBI submitted by the complainant to them. Invoice had already been handed over by O.P. No.2. Hence, we do not make any order to that effect.
Copy be delivered to the parties free of cost.
Member President.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
