Date of filing: 30.03.2016 Date of disposal: 12 .9.2017
Complainant: Mr. Abhijit Mallik, S/o. Sri Ananda Mallik, Village: Dakshim Shrirampur, Kalmapara, PO: Srirampur, PS: Purbasthali (at present PS: Nadanghat), Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 316.
Opposite Party: 1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., represented by its Chairman, having its office at Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, PIN – 122 015, State: Harayana.
2. Beekay Auto Pt. Ltd., (Naruti Authorized Dealer), represented by its Manager, having its office at NH-2, Pamra Village Road, Chandni More, Sattar Mile, Burdwan, Pin – 713 101.
3. Beekay Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kalna Branch, represented by Manager, Beekay Auto Pvt. Ltd., (Maruti Authorized Dealer), Auto Stand, S.T.K.K. Road, near S. D. Hospital, Kalna, Burdwan, PO. & PS: Kalna, Dist: Burdwan, Pin – 713 409.
4. Branch Manager, Beekay Auto Pt. Ltd., (Maruti Authorized Dealer), represented by its Manager, having its office at NH-2, Pamra Village Road, Chandni More, Sattar Mile, Burdwan, Pin – 713 101.
Proforma Opposite Party: 5. Magma Fincorp Ltd., represented by Chairman, having is
Registered office at Magma House, 24, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Roy).
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Sanyuk Banerjee.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Somenath Banerjee
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2 & 3: Ld. Advocate, Chandan Aich.
Appeared for the Proforma Opposite Party No. 5: Ld. Advocate, Sumit Roy.
J U D G M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the OP-2 did not registered his vehicle from the date of purchase till this date.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one four-wheeler vehicle on 23.7.2014. the complainant purchased the vehicle from the OP-1, happens to be the company producing the vehicle of which the OP-2 happens to be the dealer through whom the schedule vehicle has been purchased and the same has been purchased by the complainant from the branch office situated at Kalna of the OP-2 dealer of the OP-1 company and the same branch office of the OP-2 dealer as situated at Kalna happens to be the Branch Manager of the OP-2. The purchase of the vehicle had been an on road purchase and for the purpose of the same the complainant paid the OP-3 a total amount of Rs. 8,07,193=99. The receipt of the payment of the same amount has been signed by the authorized signatory o the OP-3 but the same receipt happens to be on the letter of the OP-2. For the purpose of purchasing the vehicle the amount as aforesaid as paid by the complainant had been inclusive of Road Tax and registration to the tune of Rs. 50,800=00 as also the insurance premium to the tune of Rs. 21,317=00 After the said purchase unfortunately the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 08.9.2015 but fortunately the said accident the complainant had taken his vehicle in the OP-2 on 08.9.2015 and the OP-2 had taken a length of time and had only returned the same vehicle on 08.01.2016. For taking such a length of time for due repairing of the vehicle only over the plea of non-availability of the required parts caused the complainant and his family a lot of harassment, mental agony and pain. For the purpose of getting the vehicle duly repaired the net bill amount raised by the OP-2 had been Rs. 2,68,538=00, out of which the complainant had to pay Rs. 66,816 + Rs. 4,400=00 thus amounting to Rs. 71,216=00 and the rest amount had been paid by the Insurance Company. Although the OP-2 within due and reasonable time handed over the complainant the insurance policy certificate as well as the Tax Token , but till date the OP-2 had not handed over the complainant the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle. A the time of handing over the Tax Token and the Insurance Certificate the complainant has taken the delivery of the same by signing on the Register maintained by the OP-3 of the OP-2 but till date due no non-supplying of the Registration Certificate by the OP-2, the complainant till date could not fulfill his desire and aspiration of having one or more family tour by travelling outside the State of Bengal through the vehicle along with his family members. Moreover, due to such unnatural activity of the Ops, have been compelled to ply the said vehicle without any Registration Certificate. The complainant made a number of personal visit to the OP-2 but all his visit turned fruitless but upon getting the insurance claim from the Insurance Company after the accident as aforesaid the complainant got assurance that his vehicle is actually registered with the Registering Authority but due to uncaring attitude of the OP-2 the same has been lost from their office and this fact has been informed to the complainant by the men working in the OP-2 office verbally and they assured that they will arrange for duplicate copy o the Registration Certificate o the vehicle but till this date they could not arrange for the same and handed over the same to the complainant. Or such action of the Ops the complainant inspite of being a law abiding citizen has been compelled to ply the vehicle only under the emergency condition and not always. Even under those emergency conditions, the complainant being a law abiding citizen has been compelled to ply the vehicle by violating the law of this land wherein he is duty bound to produce the Registration Certificate during plying the same if be asked by the Motor Vehicles Department o by any Police Official. But due to aforesaid act of deficiency of service and the aforesaid uncaring act of misplacing and/or loosing the registratio0n certificate of the complainant by the OP-2 and the act of unfair trade practice whenever the complainant had to ply the vehicle under emergency situation. All the time his prestige, reputation, social status in the eye of the general people at large had been at stake which added to the mental agony, pain and suffering of the complainant for which the complainant is liable to be compensated by the Ops to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000=00. Moreover, the complainant as well as his family members inspite of having a vehicle of their own had to arrange for hiring of vehicle which also added to the suffering, mental pain, agony, harassment for which the complainant is liable to be compensated by the Ops to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000=00. For undue delay in the matter of repairing the vehicle after the accident over the feeble plea of non-availability of the required parts as claimed by the OP-2, the complainant is also liable to be compensated by the Ops to the tune of Rs. 50,000=00. The complainant is also to get from the Ops an amount of Rs. 10,000=00 towards the cost of this case. In all the complainant has prayed to direct the Ops to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 4,60,000=00 as compensation and litigation cost.
From this additional affidavit it is clearly evident that the complainant is not a law abiding citizen and he has himself submitted that he has violated the law of the land by violating the law and order under compulsion.
The OP-1 has contested the case by filing written statement denying all the allegations leveled against it in the petition of the complaint by the complainant. The Op-1 has stated in his written statement that the complainant neither entered to any contract for sale of goods (car)/accidental repairs nor hired any service for consideration with this answering OP. So the complainant without any reason or cause of action has impleaded this OP-1 to the present case. Hence on the ground alone this Forum be discharged this OP from array of parties. The OP-1 further states that the complainant purchased the vehicle for the personal use or the use of his family. It is emphatically submitted that the complainant bought the vehicle in question for commercial use as the vehicle has covered the distance of 29527 km in one year and five months.
The complaint has been contested by the OP-2&3 by filing conjoint written version denying all the material allegations made by the complainant in his petition of the complaint. The case of the Op-2&3 is that the story of the complainant of not receiving the registration book from the Ops is not true and correct. That due to delay in delivering the registration certificate could not be delivered on the day when the insurance policy note, tax token and other documents were delivered. After few days the said registration certificate was handed over to the complainant and as the complainant earlier has endorsed his signature on receiving note that he has received the insurance policy note, tax token etc. the employees o the Ops did not ask for his signature on good faith. The Ops came to learn from reliable source that the vehicle of the complainant though registered as private vehicle, still then the complainant used the said vehicle in commercial purpose. The complainant plies this vehicle on hire and if the registration certificate is not being within the custody of the complainant the impugned vehicle could not ply on the road or such a long period. As such the story of not getting the registration certificate is out and out false story made out in support of the case. The further case of the OP-2&3 is that they never involved in unfair trade practice or no undue delay of repairing the vehicle has been made by the Ops. The Ops are prompt in service to the complainant and there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. As such the allegation in service on the part of the Ops as levelled against these Ops are baseless and without any foundation. So the Op-2&3 have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
The complaint is also contested by the OP-5 by filing written statement contending that no allegation has been made against this OP. As the complainant has stated in his complaint no relief has been claimed from OP-5 so there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-5. The OP-5 further stated that the complainant entered into Loan and Guarantee Agreement after understanding all the terms and conditions mentioned therein at his free own will and the bank has provided the same believing that the complainant would keep the trust by making the payment on specified dates as per the repayment schedule despite the complainant failed to repay the installments within the stipulated time. It is very much relevant that the relationship between the OP and the complainant is that of the creditor and the borrower only and as such there is no consumer relationship between these Ops and the complainant. The OP-5 has prayed for an order that this OP is not liable to pay any of the reliefs as claimed thereto and the said complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
Decision with reasons:-
There are two fold allegations by the complainant. The first one is that the vehicle in dispute has been handed over to the complainant after repairing after a lapse o four months for which the complainant has suffered very much and he has to hire other vehicles or transportation or rather travels from one place to another. That is why he has incurred a monetary loss. But from the written version as well as the complaint it is evident that the vehicle in dispute has been broken severely due to the accident met on the way. Because of that the repairer has to change 183 parts of the vehicle of which many of them were not available at the time of repair. According to the argument made by the Ops before rep[air of the vehicle there are certain formalities which are to be observed for repairing like investigation and other papers related to the accident. That is why delay for handing over the vehicle has been occurred.
The complainant in his additional evidence on affidavit submitted that the complainant has a business of ‘çontractory’ and for satisfying the demands of his said job had to travel a lot and it is known to everybody that registration certificate is generally given after five or six months and hence after purchasing of the vehicle for a period of six months or like that, there was no trouble in plying the vehicle but subsequent to that period the non-having of registration certificate without any proper excuse was not believable but due to good luck of mine, the vehicle in dispute had not been caught by the Police Officials till this date and hence it could be plied within the local areas and as such the running of the vehicle in dispute indicates to the effect of having a substantial run that too violating the law of the land under compulsion which has been caused due to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the Ops regarding the matter of non-handing him over the registration certificate of the vehicle in dispute. From this submission by the complainant it is clearly evident that the complainant is not law-abiding citizen, as he violated the law of this land by running his vehicle without nay valid registration certificate.
The second allegation the complainant has raised the question of non-delivery of registration certificate for which he has to incur a huge loss as he has not been permitted to travel outside the state. The OP argued that they have already supplied the registration certificate to the complainant denied as he has not endorsed any signature as “received“ on the said document. But the OP submits that the complainant has taken he registration certificate and they have supplied it on good faith keeping no endorsement from the complainant as “received’’. It is a matter of debate whether the complainant has received the registration certificate or not but from the actual evidence it is seen that the vehicle has run near about 30,000 km. Moreover the complainant submitted during argument that he has a “thikadari” (contract) business for which he has to run his vehicle.
As per submission of the OP-2&3, non-availability of the so many spare parts (183 nos) and other pre-observance of formalities like investigation, it is justifiable to take 3 to 4 months for repairing. Moreover, the complainant has not been able to produce any cogent evidence so that cost of hiring of any vehicle during the period of job can be ascertained. So the claim of the complainant cannot be considered. Secondly, from the averments of the complainant and the Ops, it is evident that the complainant has used his vehicle for commercial purpose by running his vehicle near about 30,000 km within such a short period. So the complainant is not a consumer under the purview of the Section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Hence, the complainant loses his case. Accordingly, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint No. 49/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) DCDRF, Burdwan
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
