Order-10.
Date-13/03/2018.
AUTHOR. RABIDEB MUKHOPADHYAY, MEMBER
The Complainant’s case under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986, in brief, is that Complainant booked a pre-owned Car being no. WB20G 8023, Santro by paying Rs.10,000/- cash on 29.04.2015 at the office of OP. It was agreed that after full payment of Rs.1, 23,000/- within two months the OP would get the car registered in the name of the Complainant, handover the Smart Card (Blue Book) in the name of the Complainant and handover the life-time tax token. Complainant made full payment of the consideration of Rs.1, 23,000/- on 10.05.2015.
After expiry of two months, the Complainant demanded the Smart Card and Tax Token but the OP did not hand over the same. Complainant for the last three years visited the OP’s office several times and contacted over phone at least 50 times. On 02.02.2017 Complainantdemanded the date of delivery in writing and in reply the OP agreed that the same would be delivered on 2.02.2017 but said promise of OP yielded no result. The Complainant stated that the behavior of the OP amounts to deficiency of service and the complainant is entitled to get back money of Rs.1,23,000/- along with interest, compensation for harassment and prayed for direction upon the OPs to return Rs.1,23,000/- along with interest, compensation for harassment, Litigation cost, direction upon the Respondent to take back the car etc.
Points for Decision
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP;
- Whether the OP is deficient in keeping its promises;
- What the complainant is entitled to any relief.
Decision with Reasons
The OP did not attend to file Written Version in spite of the summon being delivered upon the OP and the OP, therefore, failed to controvert the allegations levelled against him by the complainant. Though we must resolve the dispute on merit but as per settled principles of law, OP indirectly admitted the grievances of the complainant.
It appears that the complainant stated at complaint para-5 that total consideration of Rs 123000/- was paid by the complainant on 10/5/2015 vide Money Receipt dated 10/5/2015. But as per Money Receipt No. 214 Date 10/5/15 issued by the OP that the balance amount of Rs 113000/- was paid by the complainant in cash. From Money Receipt No.176 Date 29/4/15, it appears that the complainant paid Rs 10000/- as booking money to OP. So, total consideration money of Rs 123000/-was paid by the complainant under said two Money Receipts.
It appears from complaint para-3 a, b, c under Affidavit and Evidence on Affidavit para-4 a, b, c that the OP had to hand over registration certificate of Santro car no. WB 20 G 8023, Smart Card and tax token within two months. But after lapse of two months, OP did not comply with the said obligations.
It also deserves mention that the car was booked for carrying to and fro for treatment of complainant’s old, ailing father but the purpose was in vain as in spite of 5 to 6 times personal visit to OP’s office and contacting at least 50 times over phone, OP did not keep its promise to the complainant till date of lodging the case, even till the date of exparte hearing on 06/3/18.
It further appears that on consistent follow up of the complainant, OP gave written undertaking on 02/02/2017 that the smart card would be provided to the complainant on 26th Feb, 2017. A long time elapsed since that written promise but no obligation has been kept by the OP.
The purpose of purchasing the car has been futile as the same cannot be used
due to severe failure of OP in not providing the documents required for plying a car on the road. The OP is, therefore, seriously deficient in rendering promised service to the complainant, who paid consideration in full to OP, and the complainant is a consumer under the OPO in terms of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended. So, the complainant deserves relief.
We also noted that the OP not only committed deficiency in service in not keeping its promises to the complainant in handing over the assured and required documents but also adopted unfair trade practice by way of looting the invested money of the complainant. Frustrating the very purpose of purchasing the car by the OP is not only sheer deficiency but alsounfair means by way of which OP thrived with business, extracted money from the public at large by posing a business and amassed wealth for their own benefit and ulterior gain.
The Evidence-on-Affidavit filed by the complainant on 6th March, 2017 also remains unchallenged and uncontroverted from the side of the OP. The OP could not file any version as well in controverting the allegations of the complainant, thereby admitting indirectly the allegations of the complainant as already discussed.
As a logical corollary of the discussion made above and having regard to the documents and evidence on record, we think that the complainant is entitled to get some relief as prayed for.
Consequently the case merits success and we are constrained to pass
ORDER
That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP in terms of section 13(2)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;
That the OP is directed to return to the complainant within 30 days of this order.
Rs 123000/- with 9 percent interest (from 29/4/2015 on Rs 10000/- and from 10/5/2015 on Rs 113000/-) till date of actual payment, Rs 15000/- under section 14(1)(d) of the Act as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and Rs 5000/- as litigation cost, on taking back of the car from the complainant;
That the OP is further directed to pay within 30 days of this order Rs 20000/- under section 14(1)(hb) of the Act, for adopting unfair trade practices, which shall be deposited with the Forum;
That on non-compliance of above order by the OP in time, the complainant shall have the liberty to put the order into execution under section 27 of the Act ibid.
Let parties be handed over copies of the judgement when applied for.
