1. Dr. Hirendranath Dattta,

            4/5/2, Jogendra Basak Road,

            Baranagore, Kolkata-36.                                                                        _________ Complainant

____Versus____

1. R D Motors Pvt. Ltd.

            149, B.T. Road, P.O. Kamarhati, Kolkata-58.

1. Regional Manager,

Tata Motors Ltd.

Apejay House, 15, Park Street,

5^th Floor, Block-A, Kolkata-16.                                                               ________ Opposite Parties

Present :           Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   15    Dated  29-01-2014.

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a Tata Nano car LX-C Gold and for this purpose he deposited an amount of Rs.25,0000/- to o.p. no.1 on 26.3.11 by a a/c payee cheque being no.673139 dt.26.3.11 drawn on Axis Bank. Out of total consideration amount o.p. no.1 asked to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- and rest have to be paid by the complainant on the date of delivery of the car. Even after expiry of long period of time o.p. no.1 has not contacted with the complainant. Complainant contacted with o.p. no.1 several times, but every time o.p. no.1 assures the complainant that within a short period of time the car would be delivered. On 28.5.11 complainant sent a letter to o.p. no.1 with a request to refund the deposited amount of Rs.25,000/- but no effective step was take by o.p. no.1 till date. O.p. no.1 neither refunded the money nor delivered the car to the complainant. The complainant has been suffering both physical and mental harassment and also suffered monetary loss. Therefore complainant filed the instant case with prayer of refund of Rs.25,0000/- from o.p. no.1 along with compensation and cost.

            Both o.ps. appeared and filed w/vs.

            In their w/v o.p. no.1 denied all material allegations against them. They have admitted in their w/v that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- to o.p. no.1 by a cheque to purchase the car in question subject to condition to pay the balance amount at the time of delivery of the car. They also submitted that after searching the civil credit information report it was found that this complainant previously took several loans from bank but he failed to repay his loan amount. Thereafter o.p. no.1 intimated this fact to the complainant and requested him to receive his advance balance amount of Rs.10,000/- after deducting of Rs.5000/- for loan processing charges and Rs.10,000/- for car booking charges, but the complainant refused to that proposal and filed the instant case. O.p. no.1 is ready to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant after deduction of the aforesaid charges. So the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            In their w/v o.p. no.2 also denied all material allegations interalia stated that the complainant has no grievances against o.p. no.2. So the present complaint ought to be dismissed for misjoinder of necessary party. The grievances whatsoever was raised against o.p. no.1 and hence the name of o.p. no.2 be expunged from the cause title. There is no relation between the complainant and o.p. no.2. Hence the complainant is debarred from claiming any compensation or damages from o.p. no.2. So the complaint be dismissed with cost for interest of justice.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant deposited a cheque of Rs.25,000/- to o.p. no.1 to purchase a Tata Nano car on 26.3.11. Complainant has filed a money receipt to that effect. After that on 28.5.11 the complainant sent a letter to o.p. no.1 requesting him to refund the deposited amount for non delivery of car in question. O.p. no.1 agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- after deduction of the loan processing charges of Rs.5000/- and car booking charges of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant deposited the money to o.p. no.1 and the complainant is a consumer of o.p. no.1. There is no communication of the complainant with o.p. no.2. In this connection we have also relied upon the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd.  vs.  Nagender Prasad Sinha and another II (2009) CPJ 295 (National Commission). In this connection the complainant had relation only with o.p. no.1. The grievances have been raised against o.p. no.1 who resides beside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. So the case is not maintainable before this Forum due to want of territorial jurisdiction. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.