DATE OF FILING                    :     22.04.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      02.07.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     08.06.2015.

Jahangir Mallick,

son of Deloyar Mallick,

residing at village Ghoradaha ( Khankapara ), P.O. Mato,

P.S. Amta, District Howrah,

711410………..………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.

• Versus -

   

  1. R & R Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

     situated at P 270, Benaras Road, Belgachia,

     Howrah – 711108.

2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

having its office at 7 Kyl Street, 3^rd floor,

Kolkata 700011.

3. Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Munshirhat Branch,

situated at village Shankarhati, P.O. Munshirhat,

P.S. J.B. Pur, District Howrah,

711410. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

             Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

                               Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

             Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak,  L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).

                                          F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Jahangir Mallick, against the o.p.,R & R Motors Pvt. Ltd., being the selling agent of Mahindra & Mahindra Vehicle and the o.p. no. 2, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. being the manufacturer of the said vehicle ‘Maxximo Diesel’ and o.p. no. 4 being the Branch Manager, S.B.I., Munshirhat Branch, praying for a direction on the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to assist him to obtain the certificate of fitness from the motor vehicles authority or replace the purchased Maxximo Vehicle by a new one as the purchased vehicle failed to get the certificate of fitness from the authority having manufacturing defect and also compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for mentaland physical agony and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs. The petitioner purchased the vehicle for self employment.

    

2. The o.ps. though served with notice and appeared in this case and given more than a year to file written version and contest the case yet they did not contest and thus the case was heard ex parte against o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 4 and the name of o.p. no. 3 was deleted from the cause title of the petition as per order dated 12.3.2015.

3. In support of his case the petitioner, Jahangir Mallick, filed affidavit as well as his purchase documents showing payment of money to the o.p. no. 1 by cash as well as through loan and he further submitted that the vehicle authority got his vehicle registered but did not issue him the certificate of fitness as the vehicle was not entitled to ply on the road as per Rules and Regulations of M.V. Act having manufacturing defect as noticed from scrutiny of the vehicle by the authority.The petitioner further submitted that this is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to sell the vehicle and to manufacture the vehicle and there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the petitioner as all the evidences available here went unchallenged and it is noticed that the petitioner made a payment of Rs. 5,61,678/- but his vehicle failed to get the certificate of fitness require for plying on the road by a motor vehicle and the above facts proved the case of the petitioner that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 who are responsible for the pain and agony also caused to the petitioner and also paying him litigation costs. As they dragged him to such an unwanted situation against the o.p. no. 4 banker there is no claim and so the case be dismissed against o.p. no. 4.

4. In view of above, the claim succeeds.

5. Court fee paid is correct.

Hence,                                    

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 243 of 2014 ( HDF 243 of 2014 )  be and the same is   allowed ex parte with costs of  Rs. 10,000/- be paid by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to the petitioner.  

      The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are directed to replace the vehicle of the petitioner paying him a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- being the loss incurred by him for not plying the vehicle or to pay him the consideration money of Rs. 5,61,764/- with interest since purchase to till recovery @ 9%  p.a.

      The petitioner is also entitled to Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment and the above order be complied by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2  within 30 days from the date of this order failing the amount would carry interest @ 9% p.a. till recovery and also the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order into execution.

      The case against o.p. no. 4 is dismissed without costs.     

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    B. D.  Nanda   )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.