Dt. of filing : 25/07/2018
Dt. of Judgement : 08/03/2021
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely Dr. Atanu Kumar Maitra under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (referred as OPs hereafter) namely 1) Mr. Amitava Basu, 2) M/s. R. D. Motors Pvt. Ltd and 3) The Registering Authority, Public Vehicle Department, Govt. of West Bengal, Behala Unit alleging deficiency in service on their part.
Case of the Complainant in short is that he purchased one second hand TATA NANO 273 MPFI Petrol Engine being Vehicle Registration no.WB24R2465 on 22/05/2015 from the Opposite Party No.1 at a total consideration of Rs.50,000/-. After purchase of the said car, Complainant applied for transfer of the said vehicle in his name before the Public Vehicle Department i.e. Opposite Party No.3. But on inspection by the MVI (Technical) it was noticed that the Engine number of the said vehicle does not match. So Complainant directed Opposite Party No.1 as well as Opposite Party No.2 who is the dealer of the said vehicle namely M/s. R. D. Motors Pvt. Ltd to know why the Engine number did not match. But the Opposite Party No.2 by a letter informed the Complainant that subject vehicle was replaced at their workshop on 27/9/2012 at 2020 Km. under warranty. Inspite of several requests Opposite Party No.1 & 2 did not provide the replaced Engine number of the said vehicle. Ultimately a notice was sent by the Complainant through his Ld. Advocate to the Opposite Party No.1 but all in vain. Copy of the said notice was also sent to the Opposite Party No.2. Thus the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant praying for directing the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 either to provide Engine number of the said vehicle and to co-operate and appear before the Office of Opposite Party No.3 for transfer of the name of the ownership or to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- together with admissible rate of interest, to pay Rs.50,000/- by Opposite Party No.1 as compensation and Rs.50,000/- by all the Opposite Parties as litigation cost.
Complainant has filed the documents i.e. Tax Token of the vehicle in dispute, receipt of original documents issued by Motor Vehicles Department and e-mail by R. D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Dated 15/5/2018 and also copy of the notice sent by the Complainant through his Ld. Advocate.
On perusal of the record it appears that Opposite Party No.1 is contesting the case by filing written version denying and disputing the allegation contending inter alia that he sold the said second hand TATA NANO to the Complainant and the Complainant had scrutinised all the inner formation of the said vehicle by engaging technician. Opposite Party No.1 has no personal knowledge regarding the inspection of the vehicle by MV Authority and it is unknown to him, as to, in what circumstances it was found that the Engine number of the vehicle was a different one. So Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite Party No.2 has also contested the case by filing written version stating that the Complainant himself has admitted that he purchased second hand vehicle from the Opposite Party No.1 on 22/5/2015 and not from the Opposite Party No.2. The vehicle was placed before the Opposite Party No.2 on 27/9/2012. So there is no scope to claim any relief against the Opposite Party No.2. It has also contended that the Opposite Party No.2 closed their company and in consequence thereof, all records were destroyed. However subsequently the Company was started working but there is no scope to restore those documents. So the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Opposite Party No.3 also on receiving of the notice filed its version stating that as per office procedure for change of address of vehicle and transfer of its ownership, the vehicle was produced before the Technical Officer for through check up and during physical verification it came to light that the Engine number of the vehicle is different from that of in the Registration Certificate.
During the course of the trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief followed by filing of questionnaire and reply by Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and thereafter affidavit-in-chief was filed by Opposite Party No.1 & 2 which was followed by filing of questionnaire and reply thereto and thus ultimately written notes of argument has been filed by the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.
So the following points require determination:
- Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for a comprehensive discussion to avoid repetitions.
In support of his claim Complainant has filed copy of the Smart Card or the Registration Certificate wherefrom it appears that vehicle stands in the name of Opposite Party No.1 Mr. Amitava Basu and the Chassis number is stated as MAT612203BKC21226 and Engine No.273MPF105CYYK19629 and its Registration No.WB24R2465. So far as purchase of the said TATA NANO vehicle by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.1 has not been disputed and denied by Opposite Party No.1 at consideration of Rs.50,000/-. Copy of the receipt is also filed by Opposite Party No.1 along with his written version. However it is claimed by the Complainant that when he moved before Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Registering Authority, Public Vehicles Department for change of ownership, on inspection by the Motor Vehicles Inspector (Technical) it was found there was change of Engine number. It is also admitted by Opposite Party No.3 that on inspection of the vehicle, it was found that the Engine number does not match with the Engine number stated in the Registration Certificate. Change of Engine number of the vehicle or its replacement has also been admitted by Opposite Party No.2 in its letter dated 15/5/2018. The said letter has been addressed to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.2 and it has been categorically stated therein that the bare Engine Assy of the subject vehicle has been replaced at their workshop on 27/9/2012 at 2020 Km under warranty, as per service history record of the said vehicle. So apparently Engine of the vehicle was replaced. If that be so, then Opposite Party No.1 at the time of sale and Opposite Party No.2 subsequent to receiving letter of Complainant, were under the obligation to inform the Complainant about the said changed/replaced Engine number. But same has not been done. If the Engine number so replaced is not informed to the Complainant, in the absence of the same, ownership of the vehicle could not be changed and in such a situation Complainant in the absence of the Registration Certificate will not be able to ply the vehicle on road. So apparently there has been deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2. So far as the ground taken by the Opposite Party No.2 that they closed workshop and destroyed all the documents, cannot be a ground to deprive the Complainant from using vehicle purchased by him. In such a situation Complainant is entitled to the relief of directing Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 to either inform the new Engine number of the said vehicle to the Complainant enabling him to transfer the name of the ownership or in alternatively he is also entitled to refund of the sum paid by him from the Opposite Party No.1.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/449/2018 is allowed on contest against Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and dismissed against Opposite Party No.3.
Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are directed to provide new Engine number of the subject vehicle to the Complainant within 2(Two) months from this date or in alternatively Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the consideration of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @8% p.a.(in the form of compensation) on the said sum from the date of its payment to till this date within the aforesaid period of 2(Two) months. On receiving the sum by the Complainant from Opposite Party No.1, Complainant shall return and hand over the subject car bearing Registration no.WB242465 to the Opposite Party No.1.
Opposite Party No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within the aforesaid period of 2(Two) months.
