Tripura

West Tripura

CC/43/2015

Sri Prasanta Paul. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Jain Udyog & 5 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.B.Chakraborty, Mr.F.Miah.

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   43  of   2015

    Sri Prasanta Paul,
     S/O- Sri Monoranjan Paul,
     Matai, P.S. Belonia, 
     District- South Tripura.

     Present Address:
     C/o- Anju Paul,
     Akhaura Road, North Joynagar,
     Agartala, West Tripura.        ........Complainant.
    
                 ___VERSUS___

    1. M/S Jain Udyog,
     Gakulnagar, P.S.- R.K. Pur,
     District- Gomati, Tripura.
     PIN- 799 120.

    2. M/S Jain Udyog,
     Arundhutinagar,
     P.S- A.D. Nagar,
     Agartala- 799 003,
     West Tripura.
 
     3. Maruti Suzuki India Limited,
     Regional Office at-
     403, Orian Towers,
     Christian Basti, G.S. Road,
     Guwahati, Assam, India,
     PIN- 781 001.                 ........Opposite parties.
    
      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Mr. Basudev Chakraborty,
                       Mr. Faruk Miah,
                     Advocates.               

For the Opposite Parties        : Mr. Pradip Rathor,                                        Mrs. Deepakxi Debnath,
                      Miss Moon Basu,
                      Advocates.                                                   

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  14.03.2016

J U D G M E N T

        This case was filed by one Prasanta Pal alleging about the deficiency of service by Jain Udyog and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. It is alleged that Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. given advertisement about sale of Maruti Alto LXI CNG. In the advertisement seating capacity is written 5. Petitioner being influenced by the advertisement purchased the vehicle but in the purchase letter Maruti Udyog, dealer written that its seating capacity is 4. Petitioner insisted to write it 5 but the dealer refused to do so and referred the matter to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. for necessary action. But no correction was made by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. So, this case filed for deficiency of service. Petitioner claimed amount of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation.

Opposite party, Jain Udyog appeared, filed W/S denying the claim. It is stated that seating capacity was 4( 3+ 1) and accordingly sale certificate issued. Mistake if any it is to be corrected by Maruti Suzuki only.
3.        Both side produced evidence, Sale certificate, partnership deed, correspondence, letters of Jain Udyog. Both side also examined witnesses. Petitioner examined one witness, Prasanta Paul, Advertisement letter also given.
    
4.        Opposite party, Jain Udyog appeared produced statement on affidavit on behalf of O.P. No.1 and 2. No evidence given on behalf of Maruti Suzuki.

5.        On the basis of all the evidence we shall now determine whether there was any deficiency of service by Jain Udyog or Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. ?

        FINDINGS:
6.        We have gone through the advertisement, price of  vehicle was written 3.69 lakh, number of seating capacity written 5 persons. We have gone through the sale certificate issued by O.P. No.1, Maruti Jain Udyog. In that sale certificate seating capacity written 4. According to O.P. No.1 and 2, Maruti Jain Udyog  seating capacity is 3 + 1. They did not include the seat of driver and accordingly issued the sale certificate. Driver is a person. So, seat of the driver is to be included. The Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. included the seat of the driver and seating capacity wrote 5 persons. So, there is no deficiency of service by Maruti Suzuki because actually seating capacity of the vehicle is 5 not 4. The mistake was done by O.P. No.1, Maruti Jain Udyog while issuing the sale certificate they wrote 4 seating capacity instead of 5. We do not understand why this mistake was done. This is deficiency of service indeed. But how the deficiency of service caused any loss to the purchaser not explained. Whether from this sale certificate petitioner/ purchaser had to suffer any inconvenience not clearly explained at all. 

7.        Before the Consumer Forum it is to be proved that by the  deficiency of service the consumer suffered any loss. In such a case only the Forum can pass order to compensate. In this case petitioner purchased the Alto Vehicle with seating capacity 5 persons. Accordingly insurance was also done without any obstacle. No loss or damage caused for this sale certificate. So, claim for 4 lakhs as compensation not proper at all. However, for the deficiency of service the O.P. No.1 and 2, Jain  Udyog,we award Rs.5000/- only. O.P., Jain Udyog is to pay this amount to the petitioner as due to their mistake petitioner had to pursue Jain Udyog and also to file this case before this Forum. The O.P. is hereby directed to pay this amount to the petitioner within a period of 2 month if is not paid it will carry  interest @ 9% P.A. & also O.P. No.1 and 2, Jain Udyog is to issue corrected sale certificate shortly.   
               
Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA, 
WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,  AGARTALA,
 WEST TRIPURA.