DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT
CC- 423/2013
Date of Filing: Date of Admission:- Date of Disposal:
06.04.2019 13.08.2019 16.05.2019
Complainant :- 1. SRI DEBAPRASAD BHATTACHARYA
S/o Late Prafulla Chandra Bhattacharya of
E-27, Rastraguru Avenue, Nager Bazar,
P.O. & P.S. – Dum Dum,
Dist.- North 24 Parganas
Kolkata-700 028.
=Vs=
Opposite Parties :- 1. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED
Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
2. M/S SANEI MOTORS PVT. LTD.
Arupota, Off E.M. Bye Pass
(Opposite Science City)
Kolkata-700105
Having its Office and Showroom at
365, Canal Street, Lake Town
Kolkata-700048
(Near Lake Town VIP Crossing)
3. M/S MOHAN MOTOR UDYOG PVT. LTD.
Arupota, Off E.M. Bye Pass
(Opposite Science City)
Kolkata-700105.
P R E S E N T :- Sri Lakshmi Kanta Das………………….…………..…..President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw ……………………….…………….Member.
Judgment
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not take any step to redress his grievance till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the complaint is that the Complainant has purchased a Maruti-Alto 800 vehicle from the Opposite Party No.2, dealer of the Opposite Party no.1, who is manufacturer and payment of Rs.3,36,173/- was made in this respect. The Complainant paid the said amount on 14.06.2013 and the Car was delivered at the residence of the Complainant on 26.06.2013.
Contd……P/2
: 2 :
CC- 423/2013
On 06.07.2013 the Complainant found the vehicle is not in order and called the O.P. No.2. The vehicle was taken to the workshop and smoke has been coming out from the engine. The Complainant realised that the O.P.No.2 delivered a defective car which has a manufacturing defect and hence the Complainant sent a legal notice to O.P. No.2 by his advocate to realise the said sum along with other relief mentioned in that notice.
Hence this case by the Complainant with the prayer of compensation and for other relief for delivery of the defective car to the Complainant.
It is pertinent to mention here that initially the case has been allowed exparte against the O.P.s with certain direction. Then O.P. No.2 preferred the appeal before the Hon’ble SCDRC. After a contested hearing the Hon’ble SCDRC has been pleased to allow the appeal and returned back this case to this Forum for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity for hearing to all parties.
Thereafter the O.P. No.2 contested the case by filing W/V and evidence on affidavit in support of this case has been adduced by OP No.2. The O.P. No.2 alleged that the case has no manufacturing defects. The defects referred by the Complainant has been properly redressed and the O.P. No.2 requested the Complainant to take delivery of the car but the Complainant filed this complaint alleging the car was with manufacturing defect and prayed for compensation.
The following issues have been framed for the purpose of the trial :
- Is the case is maintainable or not?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get relief in this case as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs in the Complainant entitled to?
Decision with Reason
It reveals in record that in course of hearing of this case afresh as per direction of the Hon’ble SCDRC, inspite of having sufficient opportunities, none of the parties adduced any further evidence. So we are to dispose of this case on the basis of the evidence available in the record.
We have perused the entire materials and records such as complaint W/V Affidavit-in-Chief, and the issues which are taken up together for the purpose of discussion as well as consideration.
Issue No.1 : This issue has not been pressed by O.P. No.2 and we are satisfied after perusing some materials on records that the case is maintainable.
So this issue is decided in favour of the Complainant in positive form.
Issue Nos. 2&3 : These two issues are taken up together for consideration as they are interlinked and inter related.
We have perused all the documents filed by the Complainant to prove this case. Admittedly the Complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 26.06.2013 by paying sale value of Rs.3,36,173/- in favour of the OP No.2.
It is admitted by the O.P. No.2 that on the basis of the Complain made on 06.07.2013 the Complainant informed the O.P. No.2 about the problem as well as defects of the vehicle in question.
Contd……P/3
: 3 :
CC- 423/2013
After having gone through the entire record along with the evidence available from the record we got materials that the OP No.2 by filing his W/V admitted that there was starting problem in the said vehicle. It is evident that as per desire of OP No.2 the vehicle is in question was dropped to the workshop near R.G. Kar College and Hospital for removing the mechanical defects. After applying the relevant method of the said vehicle it was found that the fan motor of the said vehicle was fused for which the engine of the said vehicle got over heated and stopped. It is further content by the OP No.2 in his W/V that after removal of the said defect the engine of the said vehicle was found to be in order. It is evident since the defect was cured while the OP No.2 requested to the Complainant through his Ld. Advocate since 06.07.2013 to 13.07.2013 to take delivery of the said vehicle. But without taking delivery of the vehicle in question the Complainant filed this case for getting reliefs as per prayer of his complaint.
Admittedly there was mechanical defect of the vehicle in question for which at instant of the Op No.2 the mechanical defect of the vehicle was cured. In this connection we like to mention that as the said defect was cured the instance of the OP No.2, the further evidence in relation to defect in question is not required.
Admittedly the OP Nos.1&3 inspite of having opportunity did not contest in this case, we think there evidence in relation to defect in question is required to be proved.
After having gone through the entire evidence on record and also after having regard to the evidences adduced on behalf of the respective parties, we are inclined to hold that inspite of having the full consideration of money from the Complainant, when the OP No.2 delivered the defect car the Complainant is entitled to get back the full consideration money (as paid by him) along with the compensation (for his harassment) from the OP No.2.
So these issue No.2&3 are decided in affirmative form and in favour of the Complainant for which the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Thus the case succeeds on contest.
It is
that the complaint being no.CC-423/2013 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Op No.2 with cost and dismissed exparte against the OP No.1&3 without cost.
The OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay of the said consideration money of Rs.3,36,173/- along with the interest @12% p.a. for the period from 14.06.2013 till realization.
Contd……P/4
: 4 :
CC- 423/2013
The O.P. No.2 is further directed to pay of the said entire amount along with the compensation of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the Complainant within two months from this day without fail, in default the Complainant will be at liberty to put this decree into execution for realization of the said entire amount.
Let pain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by
