West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/10/298

Smt. Sampat Soni - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pawan Kr. More, Prop. & Director of Richie Motors - Opp.Party(s)

14 Aug 2012

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Unit-I, Kolkata
http://confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/298
 
1. Smt. Sampat Soni
3, Shiv Thakur Lane, Kolkata-700007.
Kolkata
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Pawan Kr. More, Prop. & Director of Richie Motors
51/1A, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700025.
Kolkata
West Bengal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. Sankar Nath Das PRESIDENT
  Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri MEMBER
  Smt. Sharmi Basu MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

 

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 298 / 2010.

 

1)                   Smt. Sampat Soni,

            3, Shiv Thakur Lane, Kolkata-700007.                                                     ---------- Complainant

 

---Versus---

 

1)                   Sri Pawan Kumar More, Sole Proprietor and Director, Richie Motors,

            51/1A, Sarat Bose Road, P.S. Bhowanipore, Kolkata-700025.                  ---------- Opposite Party

 

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

                                        

Order No.   19    Dated  14/08/2012.

 

            The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Smt. Sampat
Soni against the o.p. Sri Pawan Kumar. More. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had been to o.p’s  office to purchase a vehicle and chose second hand Ford Icon car and an agreement took place between the parties and it was agreed by the parties that the cost of the vehicle will be Rs.1,65,000/- and complainant paid Rs.1000/- by cheque towards advanced amount on 14.4.09 and on the same date paid Rs.1,64,000/- through cheque drawn on HDFC Bank as against vehicle no.WB-027-0187 as we find from annex-P-1, P-2, P-3 attached with the petition of complaint. But despite the aforesaid payment o.p. did not deliver the said vehicle to complainant despite thorough persuasion. Hence the case has been filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.p. had entered his appearance in this case by filing o.p. and denied all the material allegations labeled against him. Further case of o.p. as find from w/v that o.p. never came across complainant nor received any amount for purchase of the alleged and prayed for dismissal of the case. ld. lawyer of o.p. in course of argument submitted that complainant has no case and he has lodged a false case out of greed and the documents filed by complainant have been manufactured for the purpose of instant case.

            Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. In the w/v o.p. has clearly stated that complainant never came to him nor paid any sum as has been annexed vide annex-P-1, P-2, P-3 attached with the petition of complaint, but surprisingly we find from annexures attached with the w/v filed b y o.p. that there is a delivery note which reflects that vehicle in question referred to above was delivered on 28.4.09 at 2-30 p.m. to complainant and it was duly signed by complainant on the same date and there is also Form-29 and other papers showing transfer of vehicle in  question. Now the point centres around as to what is the case of o.p ? Whilst o.p. in his w/v categorically submitted that he never saw complainant nor any sum was taken by him from complainant vide annex- P-1, P-2, P-3 attached with the petition of complaint and at the same time we find delivery note as well as Form-29 together with allied papers showing transfer of the vehicle in question in favour of complainant. We fail to understand that o.p. has taken two stands at the same breath and therefore, the case of o.p. is hardly believable to us as the same are contradictory and on the contrary, the case of complainant is much more logical and acceptable to this Forum.

Therefore, we find that o.p. had sufficient lapse and deficiency being a service provider to his consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

Hence, ordered,

That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against the o.p. with cost. O.p. is directed to make payment of Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand) only together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization and is further directed to pay compensation  of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

 

       

        _____Sd-_____                 _____Sd-_____                _____Sd-_______

          MEMBER                         MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. Sankar Nath Das]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri]
MEMBER
 
[ Smt. Sharmi Basu]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.