Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.08.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund the extra amount of Rs. 10,776/- paid by the complainant.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that complainant no. 1 is working as insurance agent while complainant no. 2 is her daughter – in – law. They approached United Bank of India, Usri Branch jointly for sanction of loan for purchase of Mahindra Xylo vehicle and in this regard they approached opposite party no. 1, an authorized dealer of opposite party no. 2, who is manufacturer. The opposite party no. 1 gave a quotation on 15.03.2012 which has been annexed as annexure – A to the complaint petition. Thereafter the United bank of India sanctioned loan and the complainants handed over the demand Draft of Rs. 7,00,000/- towards the price of the vehicle as mentioned in annexure – A but they were further asked to pay an amount of Rs. 14,400/- which includes the balance amount of Rs. 3,624/- and rest amount of Rs. 10,77,6/- towards 2% high in exercise duty which was not applicable at the time of delivery of the vehicle on 19.03.2012 rather the same was applicable from 01.04.2012. After receiving the aforesaid amount, the opposite party no. 1 has issued a receipt which has been annexed as annexure - B.
It is further case of the complainant that opposite parties delivered the aforesaid Mahindra xylo on the same day i.e. 19.03.2012 with temporary registration number vide delivery acknowledgement note dated 19.03.2012 but did not issued sale letters and other required papers which were necessary for permanent registration of the aforesaid vehicle by DTO, Patna. The complainants have requested several times to the opposite party no. 1 for aforesaid papers because in absence of the aforesaid papers the vehicle cannot be registered and hence the vehicle could not be used. This has resulted in mental harassment and hampered the work of the complainant. The complainant also sent legal notice dated 26.03.2012 to opposite parties in this regard but no result. The aforesaid legal notice has been annexed as annexure – C.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. It has been asserted by the opposite party no. 1 that the complainants were made to understand that the original documents have not been received from the company and as such requested the complainants either to return the vehicle within 3 days and thereafter the vehicle will be registered when the papers shall be received or the vehicle may be replaced, if the complainant pays difference amount.
It has been also asserted on behalf of opposite party no. 1 that the opposite parties have been always willing to settle the matter and even to replace the vehicle if the complainants are willing to pay extra tax payable and difference money for which several request were made to the complainants.
On behalf of opposite party no. 2 a separate written statement has been filed stating therein that the transaction between the dealer and opposite party no. 2 are principle to principle basis and the dealer is not an agent of opposite party no. 2 for any purpose. The vehicle manufactured by opposite party no. 2 are being purchased by opposite party no. 1 to resale the same to their own customer or consumer and as such complainants are not consumers of opposite party no. 2.
It has been further asserted that there is no privities of contract between the complainants and opposite party no. 2 and since there is no relationship of consumer between them hence the complainant has no right to claim any relief against opposite party no. 2.
It appears that a separate petition have been filed on 02.02.2015 for addition of new Para in the relief portion and opposite party no. 1 has filed a reply to the aforesaid petition but it appears that the aforesaid application were not pressed and as such no order could be passed and the prayer were not added by the complainants in the original application hence we are bound to peruse only with prayer of the complainant in this complaint petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail and perused the relevant documents filed by respective parties in this regard.
It is a simple case of the complainants that aforesaid vehicle was delivered to them on 19.03.2012 with temporary registration number but the original sale letter etc. and other relevant papers were not given to them despite several request and notice due to which the aforesaid vehicle could not be registered with DTO, Patna.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 it has been asserted that at the time of delivery of the vehicle the complainants were made to understand that original sale certificate etc. will be given to them when it will be received by company and opposite party no. 1 was even ready to replace the vehicle if the complainant was willing to pay the difference amount.
However the facts remain that the complainants could not get original sale certificate and other papers at the time of purchase and from the paper filed by opposite party no. 1 on 21.02.2014 it transpires that the sale certificate is dated 31.12.2013 while the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 15.03.2012 i.e. after delay of one year which is unprecedented.
This fact has not been denied by the opposite parties. So far opposite party no. 2 is concerned he has taken technical objection that relation between opposite party no. 1 and 2 are principle to principle basis and hence opposite party no. 2 is not responsible.
In our opinion opposite party no. 2 was duty bound to supply relevant documents to opposite party no. 1 so that the same can be handed over to the complainant in time because no law permits to supply the relevant papers to the purchaser i.e. complainants after delay of one year.
The aforesaid conduct of the opposite parties disclose gross deficiency on their part.
However it is needless to say that all the transaction have been made between the complainants and opposite party no. 1.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we direct the opposite party no. 1 to return extra amount i.e. Rs. 10,776/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Six only ) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party no. 1 will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the amount of Rs. 10,776/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Six only ) till its final payment.
Opposite party no. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and mental harassment within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order.
We further direct the opposite party no. 1 to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of litigation costs within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order.
It is needless to say that as opposite party no. 1 and 2 are jointly responsible for gross negligence hence opposite party no. 1 will have authority to realize the aforesaid amount in due proportion from opposite party no. 2.
For the discussion made above this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
