DATE OF FILING : 17-01-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 14-03-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-06-2014.
M/s. Sree Howrah Stores,
a partnership firm,
represented by its partners (1) Sri Ashok Kumar Jhunjhunwal,
son of Sri Balbhadra lal JKhunjhunwala
( 2 ) Sri Balbhadra Lall Jhunjhunwala,
son of late Sagarmal Jhunjhunwala,
carrying on business at 63 & 6a3/1, G.T. Road ( South ),
P.S. & District – Howrah.---------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.
- Versus -
M/S. Dulichand Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd.,
a company carrying business at
53, Nalini Ranjan Sarkar Avenue,
( 371, Block – G, New Alipore ),
Kolkata – 700 053.------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant complaint was filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as
2. amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P. to refund Rs. 4,72,095/- with interest @ 24% p.a. duly paid as advance against consideration / sale value of SCALA RX DIESEL SILVER VEHICLE amounting to Rs. 9,72,900/- for non delivery of the vehicle by the o.p. in schedule dated i.e., within the 1st week of December, 2013 and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2, 00,000/- together with litigation costs including other relief/s as he entitled to.
3.
4. The o.p. in its written version simply denied the material allegations and admitted the
facts for non delivery of marked vehicle in time due to non receipt of NOC from the police authority. The o.p. admitted for acceptance cash of Rs. 2,97,095/- and cheque amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- which was actually not being encashed by these answering o.p. as per record. This answering o.p. also opined that he had or has intentional latches which can be termed as service deficiency on the part of the o.p. for which the instant is liable to be dismissed.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It appears from the complaint and case record that the o.p. received a major portion of the total sale value of the vehicle but did not deliver the vehicle in time i.e. on or before 1st week of December, 2013 due to non receipt of NOC in time from the police authority as per record. As the complainant intends to purchase said vehicle and that to advance amount paid to the o.p. for handing over the vehicle as a gift to his wife at her birth day on the dated 06-12-2013 towards fulfillment of the sweet dream which subsequently massacre due to non delivery of the vehicle by the o.p. The whole episode upset the complainant for non fulfillment of his sweet dream and finding no other alternative he at last compelled to refund his advance amount of Rs. 2,97,095/- as paid earlier from the o.p. in spite of having false assurance made by o.p. regarding timely delivery of earmarked vehicle, the o.p. failed to do which is nothing but gross deficiency on the part of the o.p.
According, the case succeeds with costs. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 22 of 2014 ( HDF 22 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against o.p.
The O.P. be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,97,095/- to the complainant within interest @ 9% w.e.f. 13-12-2013 to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for prolonged mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., it shall carry further interest @ 9% of the entire amount till realization.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( P. K. Chatterjee )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
