In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

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

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.448 / 2009.   

1)                   Sri Dharmendra Prasad Singh,

            203, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata-34.                                                           ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Smt. Rekha Jha,

            1A/1A, Motijhil Lane, P.S. Entally, Kolkata-15.

2)       M/s Swatantradeo Enterprises,

1/8, Justice Dwarka Nath Road,

Kolkata-20,  P.S. Bhowanipore.                                                                                ---------- Opposite Parties

3)       Sri Ramnath Thakur,

2/2A, Deb Lane, Kolkata-14.

4)       Narendra Prasad Mahato,

6A, Indian Mirror Street, Kolkata-13.                                                       ---------- Proforma Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

Order No.   30    Dated  21-03-2013.

            The case of the complainant in short is that complainant being an unemployed youth was in search of an avenue in life for job or business to establish him and to build his career has desired to purchase public vehicle for self-employment to maintain his livelihood and complainant wanted to purchase a taxi for plying the same on the road for earning his livelihood.

            One Ramnath Thakur, residing at 2/2A, Deb Lane, P.S. Entally, Kolkata-14, is known to the complainant since long and complainant was introduced to Smt. Rekha Jha by said Ramnath Thakur.

            Smt. Rekha Jha represented and/or introduced herself as the owner of a taxi no.WB 04B 1173. She decided to sell her above taxi.

            Smt. Rekha Jha, o.p. no.1 who is the owner of the taxi being no. WB 04B 1173, has offered to sell her taxi. Complainant being interested to engage himself and for earning has accepted such offer to purchase the said vehicle at a price of Rs.2,10,000/- fixed by the seller i.e. o.p. no.1.

            O.p. no.1 offered to sell the said second hand taxi cab at a price Rs.2,10,000/- fixed by o.p. no.1. Complainant paid Rs.1,80,000/- to o.p. at the time of taking delivery of the taxi cab which was handed over on 2.4.09. The balance amount was to be paid by complainant when all papers relating to the transfer of name of the taxi would be completed.

            An agreement was signed on 2.4.09 by o.p. no.1 declaring interalia that the taxi is/was free from mortgage liens etc. and also from all encumbrances.

            O.p. has duly acknowledged the receipt of said sum of Money of Rs.1,80,000/- by putting her signature in the said agreement dt.2.4.09 which was supported by two witnesses viz. Ramnath Thakur and Sri Narendra Prasad Mahato, who have also put their signatures in the said agreement as witnesses.

            Complainant at the request of o.p. no.1 further paid the sum of Rs.24,950/- to the financer Swatantradeo Enterprises on behalf of o.p. no.1 in the account of taxi no.WB 04B 1173 who issued a receipt for the same. The said amount was paid by complainant to the financer.

            Repeated persuasion by complainant to o.p. no.1 to arrange and deliver all connecting papers for transfer of ownership of taxi cab has failed to evoke any response from o.p. no.1. Complainant lodged a complaint to Entally P.S. Kolkata.

            O.p. did not arrange to transfer the name in favour of the complainant. Complainant did not know that the said taxi was purchased taking loan from a private financer i.e. o.p. no.2 which was suppressed by o.p. no.1 and a good amount of money was due to the financer M/s Swatantradeo Enterprises of 1/8 Justice Dwarkanath Road, Kolkata-20.

            Since the taxi was plying on the road on and from 3.4.09 and since o.p. no.1 took loan from the said financer, the financer took possession of the said vehicle forcibly on 15.7.09 from road and took the same under his control. O.p. no.1 settled the matter with the financer i.e. o.p. no.2 without settling the same with the complainant causing huge financial loss and damage to the complainant. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.p. nos.1, 3 and 4 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. no.2 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.2. Ld. Lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.