(1)
Govt. of West Bengal
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION –NADIA
170, DON BOSCO ROAD, AUSTIN MEMORIAL BUILDING
KRISHNAGAR, NADIA, PIN 741101, Telefax (03472) 257788
PRESENT : Shri dAMAN pROSAD BISWAS, PRESIDENT
: SMT MALLIKA SAMADDAR MEMBER
: SHRI NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY MEMBER
Case No. CC/81/2019
COMPLAINANT :1. Rupali Ghosh,
W/o: Trishanku Ghosh,
Petni Pukur Lane, Radhanagar,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia ,Pin-741103,
West Bengal.
V-E-R-S-U-S
OPPOSITE PARTIES / 1.M/S Madhusudan Garai,
1 No. College Street,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia, Pin-741101.
2.The Manager
Garai Honda
1No. College Street
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia, Pin-741101.
3. The Proprietor /Managing Director
Subrata Automobile Private Limited, (STAR HONDA),
Authorized dealer of Honda Motorcycle &Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.
Office at Palpara More
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali, Nadia, 741102.
4. The Director/M.D
Corporate Office
Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,
26. Akurdi Gaothan, Vivek Nagar,
Akurdi, Pimpri Chinchwad,
Maharastra-411035.
(2)
5. The Director/M.D
Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,
Commercial Complex-II, Sector-49-50
Golf Cource Extension Road
Gurugram, Haryana-122018.
Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Pritha Mandal
For OP/OPs : None
Date of filing of the case :17.04.2019
Date of Disposal of the case : 23.08.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.23.08.2023
Complainant above named filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the aforesaid opposite parties praying for direction to supply original Registration Certificate, Life Time Road Tax and Insurance Certificate, compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, cost of the case amounting to Rs.15,000/- and other reliefs.
He alleged in the petition of complaint that he was intended to purchase one Honda CBR-150 Model with the price of Rs.1,24,000/-. Out of said amount he paid Rs.5,000/- in favour of OP No.1 as booking amount on 04.03.2014 and OP No.1 issued one money receipt to that effect but OP NO.1 gave delivery of one motor byke of another model namely Repsol. Said motor byke contains 250CC engine whereas CBR-150 fitted with 150CC engine. On 27.02.2014 complainant went to the showroom of OP No.1 and deposited Rs.35,000/- and on that time OP NO.1 noted the model of the Motor byke over the document supplied on that time as Repsol CBR-250 model byke. Complainant had no intention to purchase CBR-250 model byke. On 27.03.2014 OP NO.1 gave delivery of CBR-250 model. Complainant already gave Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the OP NO.1. OP NO.1 stated that they will supply CBR-150 model. OP NO.1 stated the complainant to keep CBR-150 model for sometime, so long CBR-150 model was not available on that time. He gave further assurance that he would not make registration of vehicle until Repsol CBR-250 model is replaced by CBR-150 model. As per repeated verbal request of the complainant OP No.1 neither supplied CBR-150 model byke nor refunded the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 29.12.2018 complainant gave one letter through Registered with A/D Post to the OP NO.1 demanding the deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Be it mentioned here that on 27.10.2014 complainant returned back the aforesaid
(3)
motor byke vide Repsol CBR-250 model and demanded the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- but OP NO.1 did not pay the same.
Trial
During trial complainant filed affidavit in chief
Documents
Complainant produced the following documents viz :
- Original copy of Money Receipt amounting to Rs.5,000/- dated 04.03.2014..........(One sheet)
- Original copy of Booking Form dated 04.03.2014...........(One sheet)
- Original copy of Money Receipt amounting to Rs.60,000/- dated 24.03.2014.........(One sheet)
- Original copy of Booking Form dated 24.03.2014...........(One sheet)
- Original copy of Money Receipt amounting to Rs.35,000/- dated 27.03.2014....(One sheet)
- Original copy of job card dated 27.10.2014...........(One sheet)
- Original copy of letter issued by Assistant Director CA & FBP, Nadia to OPs dated 30.01.2019............(One sheet)
Brief Notes of Argument
Complainant filed BNA.
Decision with Reasons
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint filed by the complainant, affidavit in chief filed by the complainant, documents filed by the complainant and BNA filed by the complainant. We have carefully considered these documents.
On perusal of petition of complaint filed by the complainant and affidavit in chief filed by complainant we find that complainant corroborated his contention made in the petition of complaint. We also find that complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the OP NO.1.
On perusal of original money receipt dated 04.03.2014, we find that complainant paid Rs.5,000/- in favour of OP NO.1 and on that time OP
(4)
No.1 issued one booking from dated 04.03.2014 over the said document it has mentioned clearly that complainant booked CBR-150.
On perusal of money receipt and booking from dated 24.03.2014, we find that complainant paid Rs.60,000/- in favour of OP NO.1 and on that time OP NO.1 issued one booking from and over the said document OP NO.1 mentioned model of the motor byke as Repsol. In the said booking from there is no signature of the complainant so it cannot be said that complainant was agreed to purchase Repsol model on 24.03.2014.
On perusal of money receipt on 27.03.2014, we find that complainant paid Rs.35,000/- as cash.
On perusal of record we find that complainant took delivery of Repsol CBR-250 model byke on 27.03.2014. We find from affidavit in chief that OP NO.1 gave assurance that they will replace the aforesaid motor byke (That is Repsol CBR-250 Model) by CBR-150 model.
On perusal of job sheet dated 27.10.2014 ,we find that aforesaid Repsol CBR-250 model byke has deposited before the OP NO.1 by the complainant. From the affidavit in chief, we find that till date OP No.1 not yet provided CBR-150 model motor byke in favour of the complainant.
On perusal of booking from dated 04.03.2014, we find that OP NO.1 was agreed to provide CBR-150 model but as per allegations of the complainant OP No.1 violated his own assurance.
On perusal of record, we find that complainant is the consumer and OP No.1-2 are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we are of the firmed view that the complainant has established his grievance against the OP NO.1-2 which are nothing but deficiency in service.
In the result, present case succeeds.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against OP NO.1-2 with cost of
(5)
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) to be paid by OP NO.1-2 in favour of the complainant.
OP NO.1-2 jointly or severally are directed to provide CBR-150 model motor byke in favour of the complainant within 45 days from this date or OP NO.1&2 jointly or severally are directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) in favour of the complainant within next 45 days from this date in favour of the complainant failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
OP No.1 &2 jointly or severally are directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) in favour of the complainant within one month from this date failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties as free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) ..................... ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
We concur,
........................................ .........................................
MEMBER MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY) (MALLIKA SAMADDAR)
