Judgment : Dt.15.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Papri Ghosh, wife of Ranjan Ghosh, residing at P35/1, Bosepara Road, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 008 against M/s Rhythm Car World, having its registered office a 51/1A, Sarat Bose Road, P.S.-Bhawanipore, Kolkata-700 025, OP No.1, The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. (Stephen House Branch), having its branch office at 4, B.B.D.Bag(East), Kolkata-700 001, OP No.2, HDFC Bank Ltd., having its corporate office at HDFC Bank House Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013, OP No.3 and Amit Parekh, 85, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata-700 045, OP No.4 praying for a direction upon the O.P. No.4 to ensure that the said car gets registered in the name of the Complainant, an order directing the OPs to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for the loses of the Complainant suffering due to non using of the car,  an order directing the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for mental agony, and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant’s husband Ranjan Ghosh entered into an agreement for purchasing a re-sale car from the showroom of OP No.1. Complainant purchased the same car from OP No.1 at a price of Rs.4,75,001/-. According to the instruction of OP No.1, 2 and 3 OP No.4 was paid Rs.14,000/- by cheque No.0000012d.17.2.2016 for the purpose of registration and name transfer. OP No.1 to 4 promised to get the registration and name transfer done within 1 to 2 months but till date they have not done it. Complainant visited the OP No.4’s office every month requesting OP No.4 to do the same at the earliest because without transferring the name it was impossible to run the car. On the last occasion Complainant visited the showroom of OP No.4 on 20.11.2016. Complainant is not being able to drive and use the car. Thereafter the Complainant made several representations to the OP No.4 and asked him to perform his duties and obligations. But of no use. Being aggrieved and finding no other way out, Complainant served a legal notice on OPs stating that OP should get the car registered, but the OP No.4 deliberately and willfully ignored the notice. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.2 & 3 filed written version and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. OP No.2 & 3 has further stated that they entered into a loan agreement with the Complainant on 8.2.2016 whereby OP Bank sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the Complainant on some terms and conditions. Further they have mentioned that the said vehicle and dealer was selected by the Complainant and the OP Bank had no role in choosing the dealer being OP No.1. The total cost of the asset was Rs.4,80,000/-. Complainant duly availed and utilized the loan amount and purchased the said vehicle No.WB 06F-3505. They have also stated that they did not instruct the Complainant to purchase the car from OP No.1 and handover Rs.14,000/- to OP No.4 for registration of the vehicle. OP No.1 also filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, OP No.1 has stated that the contents of the complaint are misleading and not in accordance with the law. Complainant has not annexed any document to establish that Complainant suffered. Copies of relevant documents pertaining to the instant case and husband Ranjan Ghosh entered into an agreement for purchasing a re-sale car from the showroom of this OP and she has stated that she purchased the said car in absence of any supporting document, it is not clear as to  who purchased the car. Further, this OP has stated that the Complainant is concealing the facts and did not approach the Forum with clean hands. In addition, this OP has denied the specific allegations of the complaint.

            OP No.4 did not file written version and so the case is heard ex-parte against OP No.4.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP No.1, 2 & 3 filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP No.2 & 3 filed evidence. OP No.1 also filed evidence to which Complainant filed questionnaire to which OPs did not file affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint petition, it appears that the Complainant has prayed for an order directing the OP No.4 so that the car gets registered. In this regard, it appears that OP No.4 has not denied the allegations because he did not contest the complaint by filing written version. Further, it appears that OP No.4 received Rs.14,000/- for that work and registration of the car. Annexure A is an agreement where Ranjan Ghosh agreed to purchase the vehicle No.WB06F3505, model – Scorpio at the  fixed rate of Rs.4,75,001/-. There are signatures of the coordinator and the buyer of this agreement. Thereafter a copy of delivery notice is filed, which reveals that there was an agreement between the Complainant, OP No.1 and OP No.4 for the sale of the vehicle. Copies of tax token R.C. Book are filed which reveal that there was an agreement between Complainant and OP No.1 & 4.

            It also appears that HDFC Bank has granted the loan. So, the scenario is clear that Complainant paid the money for the purchase of the vehicle. But due to lapse of OP No.1 & 4 the registration could not be made and Complainant could not use the vehicle.

            Affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and replies filed on behalf of both the parties make it clear that there was an agreement between the Complainant and the OP No.1 & 4 for the purchase of the vehicle.

            As such, we are of the view that it is the bounden duty of OP No.4 to get the vehicle registered in the name of the Complainant so that she could use the vehicle. Further, it appears that due to the conduct of OP No.1 & 4, Complainant suffered loss for the period for about one year. Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the loss which she suffered during the period due to non use of the vehicle. However, we are of the view that if compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded to this head, it will be justiciable. Further, Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for mental harassment and suffering, which appears to be  excessive.

            Accordingly, we are of the view that under this head if Rs.50,000/- is awarded, justice would be served. In addition, Complainant appears to be entitled to litigation cost ofRs.20,000/-.

Hence,

ordered

           CC/132/2017 and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.1 and dismissed ex-parte against OP No.4 and dismissed on contest against OP No.2 & 3. OP No.4 is directed to get the vehicle of the Complainant registered in her name within three months of this order. In addition, OP No.1 & 4 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant with the above mentioned period. The liability to pay compensation and litigation cost is joint and severely.