West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/124/2013

Sri Biswanath Maji - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.K.Motors - Opp.Party(s)

S.Panda

21 Oct 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.124/2013                                                         Date of disposal:  21 /01/2014                                 

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Panda, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. M. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate.

          

Sri Biswanath Maji, S/o-Kalipada Maji, Vill-Chenga benga, P.O.-Tatulmuri, P.S.-Kharagpur (L), Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. R.K. Motors, Rupnarayanpur, NH-06, P.O.-Jakpur, District- Paschim Midnapore;
2. Corporation Bank, Kharagpur Branch at LIC, O.T. Road, P.O.-Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur………………Ops.                                                    

                      Case of the complainant Sri Biswanath Maji, in short, is that he purchased a truck under an agreement. Accordingly, the Op No.1 issued a road challan with assurance for registration of the vehicle on payment of charge of 5,500/- (Five thousand five hundred) only.  But after laps of four months, OP did not arrange any registration no.  Now, it is alleged that the Op. No.2 Co-operative Bank has threatened that the vehicle will be taken away in any time from the possession of complainant.  This causes both mental and economical harassment to the complainant.  The vehicle remained stranded with no use thereof.  Thus, the complainant sustained monetary loss.  Stating the case the complainant moved before this Forum with the allegation of deficiency in service against the Op. and prayed for Registration Certificate and to stop installment with compensation of 5,00,000/- (Five lakhs) only and litigation cost of 5,000/- (Five thousand) only against the Ops.

                      In this connection the complainant has also filed an application for ad interim order of injunction restraining the Ops. not to seize the vehicle bearing its chassis no.MBX0000NBLK817290 AND ITS Engine no.EE09K9069699.

Contd…………………..P/2

 

     

 

- ( 2 ) -

                  In order to establish the case the complainant submitted a bunch of documents in Xerox copies as per firisty which are as follows:-

1. Road challan dated 20/05/2013
2. Sanctioned order dated 27/05/2013
3. Insurance Policy being its no.311990/31/2014/101.
4. Quotation dated 25/05/2013.
5. Balance sheet for the year 2011, 2012 & 2013.
6. Term deposit receipt dated 27/05/2013 and some payment receipt issued by R.K. Motors dated 29/03/2013,30/03/2013, 20/05/2013 S.B A/C slip in the name of the complainant maintained in Co-operative Bank, Kharagpur.

                Op. R.K. Motors contested the case by filling W/O challenging that the case is not maintainable in law and the same is barred by the provisions of Consumer Protection act.  Moreover, the complainant purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and as such he should not get any protection from this Forum.  Apart from that necessary registration of the vehicle has been done from Burdown R.T.A. on 08/08/2013 bearing its no.WB-41G4668 and the same was informed to the complainant through Op no.2 Co-Operative Bank.Rather the complainant did not co operate with the Op. No-1and after purchase he changed the shape and colour of the vehicle at his own will.  So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Op. No.1 R.K. Motors and as such the case should be dismissed.

                    Upon case of both parties the following issues are very much relevant  for arriving at a correct decision of this case.

Issues:-

1. The case is not maintainable in its present form ?
2. Whether the Op suffers deficiency of service?
3. If the complainant is entitled to get compensation?

 

Decision with reasons:

Issue Nos. 1 to 3:-

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion in order to arrive at a correct decision of this case.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant is a purchaser of a truck under self-employment scheme.  But it is unfortunate for him that for want of proper registration of the vehicle, he could not ply his vehicle on the road.  Several times he moved before the R.T.O Medinipur wherefrom he came to know that the registration is not possible due to technical fault of the company.  As a result, the complainant suffered financial loss and harassment. 

Contd…………………..P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

Ld. Advocate emphatically pointed out that the complainant ultimately suffered for want of having registration in time on his vehicle which amounts to deficiency of service against the Op.  So, the prayer for compensation on financial loss of Rs.500000/- (Five lakhs) only should be granted in favour of the complainant. 

                  The Ld. Advocate for the Op has denied the allegation and claimed that the registration has already been accorded in favour of the complainant.  The delay on registration of vehicle took place on the ground of the fact that this is the fault on the part of the complainant who immediately after purchase of the vehicle has changed it’s shape and colour.  Moreover, the present case before the Forum should not be maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer in accordance with the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  Thus, Ld. Advocate claimed in his argument that the case should be dismissed with cost.

                  Upon hearing the argument made by the both parties, we have considered the case as a whole.  It appears that there is no challenge on the part of complainant in respect of the blame made by the Op on the point that the shape and colour of the vehicle has been changed by the complainant.  That apart, the complainant purchased the truck for commercial purpose, that is, For the purpose of earning his livelihood that attracts the definition clause of the Consumer Protection Act.  Thus present case is barred under the said act.

                  In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the issues are held and decided against the complainant and as such the prayer made by him stands refused.

                     Hence

                                It is ordered

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

 

Dic.& corrected by me

 

         President                              Member                Member                           President

                                                                                                                        District forum

                                                                                                                    Paschim Medinipur