IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.CC/ 48/2014.

 Date of Filing:   10.04.2014.                                                                                    Date of Final Order: 12.08.16

Complainant :     Ganesh Pramanik, S/O Late Shib Sankar Pramanik, Vill. Fultala, P.O.&P.S. Raghunathganj,

                             Dist. Murshidabad.

-Vs-

Opposite Party:   1. S.N. Motors Pvt. Ltd., N.H. 34, Mankara, P.O. Balarampur Dist. Murshidabad.

                           2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Automobile Sector (Malhindra Towers),

                            3^rd Floor, Akurli Road, Kandivali(E), Maharashtra.

                       Present:    Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …......................... President.                              

                                        Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

                                                                             FINAL ORDER

Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.

            The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for declaration that the complainant purchased the car on 6.2.13 and for compensation of Rs.01 lac for mental pain and agony.

            The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a Mahindra Counto Model C-2 from the OP No.1 with the financial assistance of Bangia Gramin Bank paying margin money to the Bank and on 5.2.13 the Bank issued delivery order and the car was delivered by Op No.1 on 6.2.13 by delivery challan. On 12.2.13 the documents of the car was handed over after encashment of cheque for the price of the car and then the complainant found that in the Tax Invoice the date of invoice was written as 31.1.13 and raised objection and then it was corrected as 6.2.13 . To avail 3^rd free service when the complainant went to the shop the OP No.1 expressed   that the petitioner would not get the free service facility as one year has been over from the date of issue of the Invoice and on objection of the complainant against the same the OP No.1 also indicated the date of sale as 05.11.2012 which is   false one. This is a deficiency of Service as well as unfair Trade Practice by the OP No.1. Hence, the instant complaint case.

            The written version filed by Op No.1, in brief, is that the Op No.1 has denied all the allegations of the complainant categorically. On 6.02.2014 the complainant visited the work shop of the OP No.1 for availing of “Free Services”(3^rd free service) and the OP No.1 in terms of warranty readily attended to the complainant and started to check up the vehicle for servicing. That while making such search, it was noticed that certain spare parts not covered by ‘warranty’ either have been damaged,  torn and/or broken and required replacement by new parts and accordingly the OP No.1 submitted an estimate for the sum of Rs.5237/- . But the Op No.1 agreed to scale down the estimate to the sum of Rs.4709/-. The complainant insisted on total exemption but the OP No.1 did not relent such unwarranted request, a hot altercation ensured. Becoming furious the complainant left the garage of the of the OP No.1 without signing the service voucher nor paying the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4709/-. There is no deficiency in service and/or any unfair trade practice as alleged; the instant proceeding is liable to be dismissed with cost. Hence, the instant written version.

     The written version filed by OP No.2, in brief, is that the relationship of the Opposite Party No.2 with the Opposite Party No.1 are created solely on the basis of the dealership agreement and is on  “Principal to Principal” basis.  The OP No.2 is not at all responsible for the terms of the sale by the dealer to the retail customers and for that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. According, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant W/V filed by OP No.2.

            Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of this case.

                                                    Point for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable in the present form and law?
2. Whether the complainant has locus standi to file the present case?
3. Whether the complainant is a consumer as C.P. Act, 1986?
4. Whether the complaint is barred by law of limitation?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
6. To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get.

                                                          Decision with reasons.

Point Nos. 1 to 6.

  All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.

            This is a case for declaration that the complainant purchased the car on 6.2.13 and for compensation of Rs. 01 lac for mental pain and agony.

            The complainant’s case is that the OP No.1 by practicing fraud date of purchase has been shown as 5.11.12 in the Service Book and 31. 1.13 in the Tax Invoice and relying upon those false entries refused to   provide    3^rd free service on 6.2.14 and charged Rs.4709/-.

            On the other hand, the OP No.1’s case as well as argument of the Ld. Lawyer  is that they have actually provided 3^rd free service, they have not claimed any labour charge, they have claimed only price parts supplied as the same are not covered under warranty.

            From the initiation to date of delivery of the car and for the purchase of this car with financial assistance of Gramin Bank on different occasions, different documents were prepared and as such different dates have been reflected.

            The Ld. lawyer for the OP has advanced argument that at different stages of their negotiation from booking to delivery including payment through financer by way of loan different dates have come and actually they have provided the free service. Though, the complainant is not entitled to get free spare parts during warranty but the complainant has not paid for the spare parts and in the written version the Op No.1 has not claimed.

            In this particular complaint the main case of the complaint is for declaration of the date of sale of the impugned car on 06.02.2013 and compensation of Rs.01 lac.

     Considering the above discussions as a whole and particularly relying upon the date of delivery challan as 06.2.2013 and corrected unchallenged tax invoice as 6.2.13 we can safely conclude that the date of sale of the car is 06.02.2013.

     Further we find considering the material on record that 3^rd free service was given to the complainant as the complainant did not make any payment towards charge of spare parts and for that we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.

            There being no claim of any relief against the OP No.2, we have no other alternative but to dismiss the case against OP No.2.

       Hence,

                                                                                              Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 48/2014 be and the same is allowed in part against OP No.1 and dismissed against OP No.2 on contest.

            It is hereby declared that the date of Sale of the Car is 06.02.2013.

            There will be no order as to cost.

             Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.