C.F. CASE No. : CC/09/97
COMPLAINANT : Uttam Kumar Sharma,
S/o Late Mahendra Nath Sharma,
Vill. + P.O. Fulia Belemath,
P.S. Santipur, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Parimal Paul,
S/o Subal Chandra Paul,
Authorised R.S.O. Bajaj Auto Ltd.
Fulia Automobile, N.H.34, Fulia Bus Stand,
Paul Market, P.O. Fulia Belemath,
P.S. Santipur, Dist. Nadia,
Home Address: Fulia Bus Stand Para,
Palpara, P.O. Fulia Colony, P.S. Santipur,
Dist. Nadia.
Pro-OP : M/s. Sibam, Manager,
Sibam Finance,
R.B.C. Road,
P.O. + P.S. Chakdaha,
Dist. Nadia.
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY MEMBER
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 16th February, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Bajaj Platina two wheeler motor cycle from the OP on 21.05.07. At this he paid Rs. 25,479/- to the OP. At the time of purchase the OP issued one road challan in his favour only and all other relevant documents were in his custody. The complainant took loan from the Pro-OP and it was the agreement that he would pay the loan amount to the Pro-OP at 17th monthly installments @ Rs. 1,029/- per installment. He also paid the money to the OP as cost of insurance and registration of the vehicle. He had to pay the Pro-OP Rs. 19,130/- in total including interest i.e., in total he had to spend Rs. 44,672/-. On 21.05.07 he paid Rs. 25,479/-, but excepting road challan no other document of the vehicle was delivered to him. He also paid 13 installments to the Pro-OP @ Rs. 1,130/- per installment. This complainant further submits that he time and again requested the OP to supply the registration and insurance certificates of the vehicle, but to no effect. So on 30.04.08 he lodged a complaint against the OP at the Santipur P.S. Police sent the matter for settlement to the ‘Sahayata Kendra’, but the OP did not turn up. Thereafter, on 05.11.08, the OP delivered him a written undertaking in his showroom pad to the effect that due to difficulty he failed to supply all the required documents of the vehicle. He also stated in the undertaking that he would remain responsible if the complainant faced any difficulty regarding the vehicle. Even in presence of local gentlemen he paid four installments amount of Rs. 4,520/- to this OP on condition that he would pay that amount to the OP No. 1 and also hand over all the relevant documents in connection with the vehicle. Due to non-supply of the essential documents of the vehicle, it is not possible for him to ply the vehicle. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
Summons were duly served upon the OP and the Pro-OP, but no written version is filed on their behalf. Rather on the last day at the time of hearing argument on the behalf of the Pro-OP two petitions were filed. In one petition, it is stated by him that the OP did not pay the amount of Rs. 4,503/- which the complainant submits that he paid to the OP. So he denied to issue NOC in favour of the complainant regarding repayment of the loan amount. In another petition it is submitted that the complainant paid 13 installments to him, on different dates amounting to Rs. 1,130/- on each date.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the facts of this case along with the annexed documents filed by the complainant and after hearing the argument advanced by the ld. lawyer for the complainant it is available on record that the complainant purchased one Bajaj Platina motor cycle from the OP on 21.05.07 bearing Chasis No. MD2DDDZZZNWM – 00701 and on the same day OP issued a road challan in his favour vide 'Annexure – 1’. From the petition of complaint it is available that subsequently he got insurance of the vehicle and the insurance certificate is also filed which is marked as 'Annexure – 2’. From 'Annexure – 5’ it is stated that the complainant paid 13 installments amount @ Rs. 1130/- per installment to the Pro-OP which is also admitted by the Pro-OP in the petition filed by him on the last date. Complainant submits that he paid Rs. 4,520/- to the OP which is the due amount of the installment payable to the Pro-OP. It is his duty to pay the installment amount to the Pro-OP as the Pro-OP advanced loan to this petitioner for purchase of the vehicle. The complainant’s specific allegation is that he paid Rs. 25,000/- to the OP as registration and insurance cost and for supplying other documents for plying the vehicle on road, but those documents are not supplied to him due to which he is unable to ply the vehicle on road as the said vehicle was not registered in his name.
Considering the facts of this case along with the annexed documents we find that the complainant purchased the motor cycle from the OP and paid him money for registration of the vehicle, but the OP did not perform his duty as a result of which the complainant is unable to ply over the vehicle on road. From 'Annexure – 3’ it is available that the complainant filed a written complaint against the OP at Shantipur P.S., inter alia, stating that the registration certificate, blue book or the other relevant documents of the vehicle were not supplied by the OP. From 'Annexure – 4’ it is available that the OP, Parimal Paul issued one undertaking to the extent that he sold one Bajaj Platina motor cycle and he failed to supply the necessary papers of the vehicle to this complainant. It is further stated in the undertaking that if the complainant faced any difficulty in plying over the vehicle on road, he would be responsible for that. This undertaking was given in presence of Amal Das and Dinobandhu Sen and it was issued on 05.08.08. 'Annexure – 7’ shows that he took Rs. 4,520/- from this complainant which supports the contention of the complainant that he paid 4 installments amount to the OP which the OP had to pay the Pro-OP. So considering all these, we find that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP in this case as he has not performed his work as per contract in supplying the relevant documents of the vehicle to the complainant specially registration certificate or blue book. Due to his negligent activity the complainant cannot use the motor cycle which he purchased long back. In view of the above discussions our considered view is that the complainant has become able to prove his case and he is entitled to get the reliefs. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/09/97 be and the same is decreed on contest against the Pro-OP without any cost and the same is decreed experte against the OP with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 4,520/- which he paid to the OP + Rs. 2,000/- as compensation + Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost, i.e., in total Rs. 8,520/-. The OP is directed to pay the decretal amount to the complainant within a period of one month since this date in default the complainant is entitled to get interest upon the decretal dues @ 9% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount. The OP is further directed to hand over all the legal documents of the motor cycle to the complainant within the period of one month since this date in default he is to pay further compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
