JUDGEMENT
Complainant Pranab Kumar Ghosh by filing this complaint has submitted that op offered the complainant over phone from Alipurduar on 11.12.2013 for the sale of the used car as she needed money immediately to clear some dues of her deceased husband and her husband died on 23.11.2013 and complainant responded against the offer as she is relative of the complainant and she is not able to sale the car in short period and accordingly complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- in the bank account of the op with SBI being A/C No. 31867984850 through Axis Bank cheque No. 239182 dated 13.12.2013 and deposited on the same day in SBI, Joka (IIM) Branch.
On 15.12.2013she gave the complainant form 29 of Motor Vehicle Act duly signed by herself, her daughter, Sohini Pyne & her mother-in-law, Manjusree Pyne and further gave photo copies of Blue Book, Road Tax, Insurance certificate and a copy of receipt of GD filled in Alipurduar P.S. by the op for loss of car papers and she also gave an authorization letter duly signed by herself and her daughter to drive the car from Alipurduar to Kolkata. Op told the complainant that she talked and collected the form from RTO agent at Alipurduar who transferred with those papers at Alipurduar and advised the complainant to collect the car from Alipurduar.
Thereafter complainant went to Alipurduar on 20.12.2013 by spending Rs. 1,000/- on fare and other expenses and also remained absent from work and on 21.12.2014 complainant collected the car from Alipurduar after paying the garage charge of Rs. 500/- and got general maintenance done there by spending Rs. 3,000/- and by filling fuel of Rs. 4,000/- and paid driver’s remuneration for driving the car from Alipurduar to Kolkata and also the complainant made the pollution check to get the certificate by paying.
The agent at Alipurduar said that he misunderstood and as the car owner is not alive and the car is at first to be transferred in the name of any of his heirs then the heir can sell it. After considering that complainant immediately intimated it to the op and op assured that she will do the needful. Practically complainant came back to Kolkata with the car on 22.12.2014 and complainant is spending garage charge, fuel charge, battery etc. but complainant repeatedly requested the op to get the heir-ship certificate from the local councilor as a first step to transfer the vehicle and got the affidavit done in this regard.
Complainant also met with the local councilor who assured the complainant to do the needful provided the op approaches him. So, complainant sent an SMS to the op stating what to be written on the heir ship certificate. On the same day op sent an SMS to the complainant asking to collect the spellings of names of her father-in-law, mother-in-law & two sister-in-laws. Complainant sent those names on the same day by return SMS but op did nothing and stopped phone call and on 03.01.2014 complainant sent an SMS to the op and op replied to the SMS on the same day “sorry, I could not comprehend your message who is the ownership right his husband’s car.
A few days later on 2nd week of January-2014 op instead of cooperating filed a false General Diary at Matigara P.S. Siliguri against the complainant to harass him and also complainant tried to make policy complain against such cheating, but both the police station i.e. Beliaghata, Kolkata and Ramnagar South 24 Parganas refused to accept the complaint as it is not cheating but only complications of motor vehicles department and both the parties. Complainant is employed of a sick private company employee who works hard to survive is being harassed by a medical teacher, who is being paid monthly nearly Rs. 1 lakh by the State Government. Op is so greedy that she did not spared her 80 year old mother-in-law and filled a partition suit against her at Siliguri Civil Court being case No. 08/2014 within one and a half month of her husband’s death.
So, complainant prayed for refund of the said money and other cost what he has already spent for the purpose of the car bringing from Alipurduar to Kolkata and other charges for maintaining the said car and compensation.
On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that on the death of Tapas Pyne, the husband of the op when the op was mentally disturbed, due to the sudden demise of his husband, the complainant being her near relative (husband of Dr. Tapas Pyne’s sister Mrs. Bula Ghosh) tried to deprive the op and her daughter from their legitimate claim of their property and always tried to grab their property by hook or crook.
Truth is that on the death of Dr. Tapas Pyne, op was in need of money to clear all the dues of her husband and decided to sell the car in question being No. WB 74 J 2682, which stood in the name of her deceased husband to any intending purchaser and complainant is the brother-in-law of the op’s husband. Smt. Manjusree Pyne, mother-in-law of the op as well as the complainant and Manjusree Pyne is one of the legal heir on the death of Tapas Pyne and said M. Pyne insisted the op to sell the car in dispute immediately in favour of the complainant at a meager price and according to her demand the op was bound to sign on the blank forms and papers as the said Smt. Manjusree Pyne denied to sign on any documents related to sale of the said car if the same is transferred to any intending third party purchaser and again it was a transaction between family members and op was not able to bargain the price in the market and had to sell it at a price far below than the prevailing market price. Complainant taking the advantage of the situation managed to purchase the car and kept in his possession and as a matter of fact that complainant and his wife after influencing the said Manjusree Pyne, compelled to withdraw a huge amount from the account of the deceased husband of the op by using a blank cheque after the demise of the said Dr. Tapas Pyne and even on the death of Dr. Tapas Pyne, the complainant including other tried to take forcible possession of the house property of the deceased husband of the op located at Matigara, Siliguri, for which the daughter of the op was compelled to lodge a general diary against the complainant of the instant case at Matigara P.S. on 20.12.2013 and then in possession of the said vehicle, went to Siliguri and fact remains the name of the owner ( deceased Tapas Pyne) has not yet been changed the original documents whicfh are in the custody of the op and the complainant purposefully and with motivation made such false case against the op and op already lodged a GD being No. 273/2013 dated 07.12.2013 regarding missing of original papers of the car to I.C., Alipurduar P.S. and in fact in such a situation the signature of her daughter was taken but mother of the deceased is one of the co-owner of the vehicle after the death of her husband and fact remains the complainant is not a consumer under the op and the complaint is not maintainable for which the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
After studying the complaint and written version and also hearing the argument of the parties in open Forum and also considering the entire materials in records, it is found that it is undisputed fact that op is associated professor of Nilratan Medical College and her husband was a Dr. Tapas Pyne who died leaving behind his mother Manjusree Pyne, wife the present op and daughter Sohini Pyne.
It is also fact that on the death of Tapas Pyne a Civil Suit is filed by the present op and by her daughter against Manjusree Pyne the mother of Tapas Pyne regarding property matter and for share and the case No. 08/2014 is pending before the Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Siliguri. Fact remains that Tapas Pyne died on 23.11.2013 and no doubt he had his one car in respect of which complainant has prayed for relief on the ground that he has paid Rs. 50,000/- to op and op and her daughter signed in the relevant papers and those are all Xerox copies which are filed by the complainant wherefrom it is found that the entire forms are blank, only signatures are there and also the signatures of mother of Tapas Pyne Manjusree Pyne is also there what reflects same were illegally collected.
But truth is that after the death of Tapas Pyne, the car has been transferred in the name of local heirs of Tapas Pyne. So relying upon this fact blank forms with signatures of legal heirs of Tapas Pyne, are not valid papers in support of transferring the vehicle in favour of the complainant. At the same time there is no receipt to show that Manjusree Pyne, Sohini Pyne and Pranita Pyne (Taraphdar) entered into agreement to sell the said car in favour of the complainant.
Moreover the car is an old one and in the eye of law if it is accepted that it is intended to be sold but this is resale. So, in the eye of law the complainant is not a consumer and in view of the fact, it is an old car in respect of which complainant has claimed himself as a consumer under this lady, but Act does not permit the complainant to claim as consumer.
Another factor is that Manjusree Pyne and Sohini Pyne are also co-sharer of the said car but they are not made parties. At the same time it is not the liability of the Pranita Pyne (Taraphdar) the present op to execute the deed of transfer and everything must be done jointly by Manjusree Pyne and Sohini Pyne and Pranita Pyne but that has not been done. So, apparently complainant has failed to produce to show that the car in question was transferred in the name of legal heirs of Tapas Pyne and at the same time it is found that it was hypothecated to bank and hypothecation has not been released by the RTO and same has not been transferred in the name of legal heirs and for which only Pranita Pyne cannot be liable for taking Rs. 50,000/- and if complainant is willing to get refund of the said money, in that case, complainant may file a Civil Suit before the proper Civil Court for getting such relief against the present op when in the present case, complainant is not a consumer under the op and it is a simple complication arisen out of family feuds and truth is that mother of Tapas Pyne is by the side of the complainant and getting such support this complaint is filed against the present op and fact remains the relationship in between the op and her other family relations of husband sides are very strain and it is also found that huge amount has been withdrawn from the account of Tapas Pyne by her mother without giving share to op or op’s daughter and in fact it is a completely domestic/family problems and we have gathered that the condition of the op is now very critical and she is not getting due share of her husband from her mother-in-law, father-in-law etc. and only to create further pressure this complaint is filed.
But anyhow we shall have to consider the deficiency, negligence, defects etc. in respect of any transfer. But in the present case it is neither a transfer nor a consumer dispute and at the same time it is proved that the present complaint is related to a so called agreement to re-sale of an old car. So, complainant is not a consumer and it is totally family dispute of the parties.
Accordingly the complaint fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be paid by the complainant to the op within one month from the date of this order, failing which op may proceed against the complainant by filing execution case to release that amount.
