FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Smt. SAHANA AHMED BASU, Member,

The brief facts of the case is that the complainant bought a re-sell ambassador car bearing registration no WB-04D/1339 at an agreed amount of Rs.1,77,000/- on 19/04/2014 from the Ops 1&2 . Thereafter, the complainant asked for relevant papers from the OPs1&2 so that the details of registration of the said vehicle would be updated as per details of the complainant but the Ops 1&2 did not hand over the requisite documents to the complainant. Following such negligence on the part of the OPs1&2 the complainant made acomplaint before the Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, W.B. on 17/11/201 and on consonance of such event the OPs 1&2 gave a formal reply to the complainant and the Ld. Cell by a letter dated 18/01/2017 stating that they would need some time. On 19/06/2017 the OPs 1&2 appeared before the Ld. Cell stating that they would be again in need of some time to get all the requisite documents. On 04/09/2017 a tripartite meeting held between the parties wherein the OPs 1&2 submitted that they are not in a position to resolve the grievances. During the pendency of the case it became evident through hearing of various M.A. Applications filed by the OPs 1&2 that the OP3 was the original owner of the aforesaid vehicle and whereas the OP5 (Expunged) seized the vehicle from the OP3 in lieu of making default in repayment of the loan amount.  That it further transpires from the records that the ownership of the said vehicle was transferred from OP5 (Expunged) to OP6 pursuant to an auction sale. Subsequently, the OP6 sold the said vehicle to the OP4, who thereafter sold the vehicle to the OPs1&2. Therefore, all the OPs are jointly and wholly liable for the plight of the complaint and as such, they are liable to pay the entire amount of consideration which has been prayed for in this instant complaint.

OPs 1&2 contested the case by filing written version assailing the maintainability of the case and denying all allegations against them. The case of the OPs 1&2 is that they are the authorized dealers of Maruti Suzuki and also offer True Value services by which they buy old cars from the prospective sellers and sell the same to the prospective buyers.  The vehicle in question was also hypothecated to the OP5(Expunged)and the same hypothecation agreement was terminated. The said vehicle originally belonged to the OP3 who by dint of a General Power of Attorney and the Sale Deed transferred the ownership to  OP4 and the OP4 availed of the True value Services of the OPs 1&2 in exchange of a Maruti Suzuki Swift Desire Tour car at an agreed value of Rs.1,83,000/-. The vehicle in question was then sold to the complainant at an agreed value of Rs,1,77,000/- on 19/07/2014 and at the time of sale of the said vehiclein question The OPs 1& 2 duly supplied all necessary documents to the complainant but for the change of name of the complainant some more documents were required to be signed by the original owner of the car. For this purpose OPs 1 & 2 duly approached the OP3 to obtain the signature but the OP3 refused to put his signature on multiple occasions by saying that he is involved with a civil suit against the OP5 (Expunged) and as such he will never place his signatures on the requisite papers. Therefore there has been no negligence on the part of the OPs 1&2.

OP5 (Expunged) contested the case by filing written version assailing the maintainability of the case. Submission of OP5 is that in no manner they are connected with the complainant. The vehicle in question was originally financed by the OP5 to the OP3. The possession of the said vehicle was taken by the OP5 (Expunged) due to default committed by the OP3 and thereafter it had been sold to OP6 and all formalities within purview of OP5 had been completed. Therefore the complainant neither can seek, nor can be granted any relief against the OP5 (Expunged).

OPs 3, 4 & 6 despite service of notice of the complaint have failed to file Written Version within the limitation provided u/s 38(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. No request for condonation of delay or extension of time for filing written version is made. Therefore, right of the OPs to file WV is closed.

Contesting parties have filed evidence by way of affidavit supporting their contention and Ld. Advocates for the parties have taken us through petitions as also the evidence adduced of them.

We have travelled over the documents on record and it is found that during pendency of the case Ops 3 to 6 have been impleaded into the instant case by the parties and OP5 (Expunged) was expunged vide order dated 09/07/2019. Evidently the complainant bought the vehicle in question from the OPs 1&2 by paying an amount of Rs.1,77,000/-. Facts also remains that the original owner of the said car was OP3 who fall default in repayment of the loan amount to OP5 (expunged) in respect of the said vehicle and the OP5 (Expunged) had seized the vehicle which was possessed by the OP6 pursuant to an auction and thereafter sold the said vehicle to OP4 andagain OP4 sold the said vehicle to the OPs 1&2.  Evidently, the complainant bought the said vehicle from the OPs 1&2 by paying an amount of Rs.1,77,000/- and a garage was rented by the complainant to park the car  for which the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.43,200/- in three years. There is no doubt that The OPs 1&2 have failed to supply the required documents of the said car without which the vehicle cannot be moved on the road and the complainant knocked the door of the Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, CAD (Govt. Of W.B.)for resolving the problem. Photocopy of the letter dated 04/09/2017 issued by the Dy. Assitant Director of the Central Consumer Grievance Cell (W.B.) to the complainant goes to show that:

In the last tripartite meeting on 22/08/2017 the representative of the OP verbally stated that presently they are not in the position to resolve the grievance as alleged by the by you. You also expressed your willingness to prefer taking up the matter with the appropriate DCDRF for redressal of your grievance through adjudication as no consensus reached through process of mediation.

In the WV Ld. Advocate for the OPs 1&2 submitted that the OPs 1&2 have tried time and again to collect the signature of the OP3 on the required documents but the OP3 refused to put on the same and this attitude of the OP3 is the reason behind the inconvenience of the complainant. On perusal of the record it is transparent that the OPs 1&2 sold the said vehicle to the complainant and they are the only liable to supply each and every necessary and /or required documents to the complainant. Thus,they cannot shook off their liability towards the complainant as they received the sell amount i.e. Rs.1,77,000/- from the complainant.

On evaluation of materials on record, it transpires that the complainant being 'consumer' as defined in Section 2(7)(i)(ii) of the C.P.Act 2019 hired the services of OPs 1&2 on consideration  and OPs 1&2 have failed to fulfil their part and thereby deficient in rendering services towards the complainant within the meaning of Section 2(11) read with Section 2(42) of the Act.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get some reliefs.  Despite payment of bulk consideration amount when the complainants was deprived from having a required documents for long years and compelled to count charge as rent of garage for a stationary vehicle which was bought for livelihood by paying hard earned money, certainly it caused tremendous mentally agony and harassment for which they are entitled to compensation and considering the loss suffered by him. Under compelling circumstances, the complainant has to knock the door of this Commission constituted under the Act.

In view of the above discussion we think that OPs 1&2 are guilty of unfair trade practice.  We are constrained to hold that the OPs 1&2 Car Dealers have set up a gesture of unfair trade practice apart from establishing a bad example of deficiency of service. 

In result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs 1&2 and dismissed against OPs 3, 4, and 6.

(i)         OPs 1&2 are jointly and severally directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,77,000/- subject  to taking back the said vehicle from the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

(ii)        OPs are further jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of RS.10,000/- as litigation cost within stipulated period.

(iii)       OPs are also jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment within stipulated period.

Let copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per C.P. Regulation.