West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/19/2022

Shyamasri Ghosh,W.O. Bipul Karmakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mita Bhattacharya, W.O. Lt. Harihar Bhattacharya - Opp.Party(s)

Koushik Acharya

20 Oct 2022

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder . Member.

            The complainant files this case U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant/petitioner purchased an old vehicle being No. WB 54S 6715 of Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd. and maker’s classification Dastun Go T bearing engine No. HR12870987C, chasis No. MDHZBAADOGCO34488 from one Harihar Bhattacharya, father of OP No. 2 and husband of OP No. 1 on 11/12/2018 with a consideration money of Rs. 3,10,000/ (Three lakh ten thousand only).

            The instant petitioner has paid all the consideration money to said Harihar Bhattacharya and he received  the said money after giving the proper receipt to this petitioner.

             On 11/12/2018 both instant petitioner and said Harihar Bhattacharya tied themselves with an agreement in respect of the above noted vehicle in OP No. 1 and 2 and ors.

            Thereafter said Harihar Bhattacharya died suddenly prior to the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle before the Motor Vehicle Office.

            It is further stated that OP Nos. 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of said Harihar Bhattacharya and as per said agreement dated 11/12/2018 between the petitioner and said Harihar Bhattacharya, the legal heirs of Harihar Bhattacharya are bound to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in case of death of said Harihar Bhattacharya.

            It is alleged by the complainant that after demise of Harihar Bhattacharya, this petitioner repeatedly requested these OP to transfer the name of the ownership in favour of the petitioner but they are lingering the matter with different excuse.

It appears from case record that none appears from OP members before this District Commission                                                     

after receiving the notice. OP has not taken any steps. No written version has yet been filed by the OPs. As a result of that vide order No. 5 dated 08/06/2022 this Commission stated for running of the instant case exparte against both the OPs.

Complainant’s side submitted evidence in chief and written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant herself and compare with original documents. Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made oral argument in support of her case.

          Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 Decision with reasons

            All these issues/points are taken up together for convenience of discussions and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

            From the materials on records it appears that both the parties to this case are the residence under the jurisdiction of this commission.

            The valuation of the subject matter of this case is also within the permissible limit of this Commission. Hence, this commission has jurisdiction to try this case.

The complainant purchased an old vehicle from Harihar Bhattacharya, further of OP No. 2 and husband of OP No. 1 on 11/12/2018 with a consideration of Rs. 3,10,000/-.

               But, in this case, the complainant is not a consumer lies under the definition of consumer

U/S 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides for .. "consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of

with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.”

          

According to definition of ‘Consumer’ of C.P. Act, the complainant in this case did not buy any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration. It is a case of a dispute between two parties regarding transfer the name of ownership of the said vehicle as sold by them in favour of the petitioner.

            Hence, the complainant has no locus standi to proceed with this case before this District Commission. The complainant is at liberty to put this case in proper court for proper adjudication.     When it has already been discussed and decided that the complainant in this case is not a consumer at all within the ambit of CP Act 2019. Then the question to discuss vividly whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or whether the complainant is entitle to get the compensation does not arise at all.

            The case is properly stamped.

            The points are decided accordingly.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.F. Case No. 19/2022 be and same is dismissed without cost.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.