West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/152/2017

Sri Sasabindu Maiti - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.M.Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Somasish Panda

19 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

   Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

 And

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

 

Complaint Case No.152/2017

 

             Sri Sasabindu Maiti, S/o Ghoshta Maiti, Vill. Chakpuran, P.O. Barbashi, P.S. Kharagpur

             (Local), District - Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. P.M. Automobiles, Represent by its proprietor, Vill. Pingla (Kalitala Super Market) P.O. & P.S. Pingla, District- Paschim Medinipur,
2. Sainath Automobiles, Represented by its proprietor, O.T. Road (Near Chowrangee), P.O. Inda, P.S. Kgp (Local), District- Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Parties.                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Somasish Ponda, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Subrata Das, Advocate.

                                                         

                                                                                        Date of filing:11/10/2017

Decided on: - 19 /04/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Sasabindu Maiti against the above named O.Ps, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

               Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                On 9.8.2016, the complainant Sasabindu Maiti paid Rs.20,000/- to the O.P. no.1 P.M. Automobiles as advance for purchase of a motor bike.  Thereafter the complainant again paid  Rs.21,500/- to the O.P. no.1 and thereafter a motor bike bearing engine no.KC10EFGGG0190 was delivered to the complainant with a delivery challan by

Contd…………………..P/2

        

                                                                                                      ( 2 )                                                    

showing the name of O.P. no.2-Sainath Automobiles, said to the sub-agent of O.P. no.1.  After purchase of the motor bike, the complainant went to the show room of O.P. no.1 for necessary papers which were required for registration of the motor bike and being advised by O.P. no.1, the complainant paid Rs.14,200/- on 10.02.2017 towards registration fees.  It is stated that the O.P. no.1 issued a money receipt without mentioning any reason of the same.  After passing of few days, the complainant again went to the showroom of O.P. no.1 and he was told to deposit Rs.2,200/- for completion of registration process and accordingly the complainant deposited the said amount on 23.03.2017.  In spite of receiving all such amount, O.P. did not register the vehicle of the complainant. When the complainant realized that the O.P. no.1 is not eager to register his vehicle then he went to the office of R.T.O. at Kharagpur for registration and he was informed by the said office that Form no.21 and temporary certificate of registration are required to be issued by the seller in favour of the purchaser otherwise no vehicle will be registered.  Accordingly the complainant requested the O.P. no.1 to issue Form 21 and temporary certificate of registration but in spite of several requests, the O.P. did not supply those documents for which the complainant sent a notice to O.P. no.1on 28.05.2017 through his Advocate Sri Alok Kumar Bhuiya demanding supply of those required documents but the O.P. no.1 did not give any reply.  Such act of the O.P. is not only an unfair trade practice but also amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint, praying for an order of refund of the price of the motor bike with interest and for an award of compensation and litigation cost.

                  Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written version.  

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the complainant came to the shop of the O.P. no.1 along with a person who is known to the O.P. no.1 and expressed his willingness to purchase a motor cycle of Hero Company.  After discussion it was settled that the complaint will have to pay Rs.72,768/- towards the price of the motor cycle on road excluding the cost of fittings of other materials.  The complainant disclosed that he will pay Rs.20,000/- in cash and after taking loan from the society, he will pay the rest amount. O.P. no.1 accordingly delivered the motor cycle to the complainant on 9.8.2016 after receiving Rs.20,000/-.  Thereafter the complainant paid some amount.  It is stated that till now there is due of amount at Paschim Maligram SKUS.  After purchasing the motor cycle, the complainant is using the same.  O.Ps took steps for registration of the motor cycle and paid Rs.5,934/- on 12.4.2017 to the ARTO, Kharagpur and at that time, complainant also took his motor cycle to the said office and the same was registered vide registration no.WB-36E-7716.  The complainant

Contd…………………..P/3

 

                                                   ( 3 )                                                    

was also intimated regarding such registration number with a request to pay the balance amount and to collect the certificate.  O.Ps also requested the complainant to produce the motor cycle before the ARTO authority for fixing number plate but the complainant failed to do so and he has filed this case with false allegation that the motor cycle has not been registered.  It is further stated that Paschim Maligram SKUS is necessary party as the motor cycle is hypothecated with the said samity. O.Ps therefore claim dismissal of the case with cost.

               To prove his case, the complainant Sasabindu Maiti has examined himself as PW-1 and the documents, relied upon by the complainant, have been marked as exhibits-1 to 4 respectively.  On the other hand, O.Ps have examined one Subash Patra, the proprietor of the O.P. no.1, as OPW-1 and the documents, relied upon by the O.Ps, have been marked as exhibits A and B respectively.  

 

                                                         Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

           Point no.1:-

     Maintainability of this case has not been questioned by the O.Ps at the time of final hearing of this case.  We also find nothing adverse on record regarding maintainability of this case.  

    This point is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

Point no.2:-

     Admittedly, the complainant purchased a motor cycle priced at Rs.72,768/- on 9.8.2016 from the O.Ps.   So the complainant is definitely a consumer under the O.Ps.

    Deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. has been alleged by the complainant in his petition of complaint filed on 11.10.2017 on the ground that after such sale, the O.P no.1 received money from him on 10.2.2017 registration fees of the motor cycle but the O.P. no.1 did not register his vehicle in spite of several requests of the complainant and the O.P. also did not issue Form no 21 and other necessary papers for registration of the motor cycle.  Further according to the complainant he therefore sent a letter on 28.7.2017 to the O.P. no.1 through his advocate with a request to supply such forms for obtaining registration certificate.  Since according to the complainant, the O.Ps. did not supply those documents, so the complainant has been compelled to file this case for getting refund of the purchase

Contd…………………..P/4

 

                                                ( 4 )                                                    

amount with interest and for other reliefs  e.g. litigation cost and compensation.  Curiously enough, the complainant during his cross-examination has admitted that fit certificate and number plate of the motor cycle have been given to him by the RTO office.  It is needless to say that number place is given when the registration of a motor cycle is done.  Complainant himself has admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of receiving those fit certificate and number plate, he came to know that registration of the motor cycle has been done about one month back.  From the copy of registration certificate (Exbt. B series), so filed by the O.Ps., we find that the registration of the motor cycle was done on 26.5.2017.  From the cross-examination of PW-1, the complainant, we have already found that he has admitted that at the time of receiving those fit certificate and number plate,  he came to know that registration of the motor cycle has been done about one month back, which means that he came to know about such registration in the month of June, 2017.  The present petition of complaint has been filed on 11.10.2017 with the allegation that the O.P. has not get his motor cycle registered and the O.P. no.1 even did not supply required forms for registration to him.  It thus appears that after fully knowing about registration of the motor cycle in the month of June, 2017, the complainant has filed this case in the month of  November, 2017 with some false allegation regarding non-registration of his motor cycle by the O.P.  Therefore question of deficiency in service does not arise at all on the part of the O.P.

This point is accordingly decided against the complainant. 

Point no.3:-

 In view of our above findings under point no.2, the complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.                   

                        All the points are accordingly disposed of.

 In the result, the complaint case does not succeed.

                                           Hence, it is,

                                                  Ordered,

                          that the complaint case no.152/2017  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

               Dictated and Corrected by me

                             B. Pramanik.                               P.K. Singha                                 B. Pramanik. 

                               President                                      Member                                        President

                                                                                                                                     District Forum

                                                                                                                                  Paschim Medinipur