IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                                            CASE No.  CC/169/2019

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                    Date of Disposal:

    21.11.19                                      28.11.19                                    29.11.22  

Complainant:  Muktadir Azad,

                        S/o – Abdul Kalam Azad,

                        Vill – College Road

                        P.O.-Beldanga, P.S.- Beldanga,

                        Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin- 742133

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1) Saidul Islam,  

                           Propritor of S.I Motors

                           Vill & P.O & P.S. - Rejinagar

                           Dist- Murshidabad,

                           Pin-742189

2) Manager, 

                           L & T Finance Ltd

                           Berhampore Branch, Near S.B.I. (Agr.)

                           K.K. Banerjee Road.

                           P.O. & P.S.-Berhampore

                           Dist- Murshidabad,

                           Pin-742101

               3) Manager of India Yamaha Motor, 

                           Pvt. Ltd.

                           A-3, Ind. Area, Noida-Dadri Road,

                           Surajpur, Gautam Budh Nagar,

                           Uttar Pradesh, India-201306

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant             : Madan Mohan Datt

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties         :  

.

           Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.     

                 Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.                        

                             Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

   Sri. Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.

   This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Muktadir Azad (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Saidul Islam, Propritor of S.I. Motors & Ors. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

The Complainant purchased a Motor Cycle bearing Engine No. E3Y4E0150875 Chasis No. ME1SED196J0107262 on 24/08/2018 from the shop of O.P. no. 1 and O.P. No. 1 took all responsibilities and collected vehicle cost in cash and charges for depositing of Registration fees of vehicle and insurance fees for one year of the vehicle etc. from the Complainant.  O.P. No. 1 collected money from the Complainant in cash for the purpose at the time of purchase of the vehicle. The Complainant deposited cash Rs. 68400/- when he purchased the vehicle.

The O.P. No. 1 assured the Complainant that “Certificate of Registration” would be given to him within one month from the date of purchase from Shop of O.P. No. 1 but upto January, 2019 “Certificate of Registration” was not given to the Complainant. Without the “Certificate of Registration” the Complainant could not ply the vehicle freely from the date of purchase and as such he suffered a great loss, both mentally and monetary. The Complainant moved repeatedly to O.P. No. 1 to collect the “Certificate of Registration”. On 30.12.2019 Complainant moved to O.P. No. 1 to get “Certificate of Registration” but O.P. No. 1 never answered properly about the “Certificate of Registration”. Then last week of January the O.P. No. 1 gave the “Certificate of Registration” to the Complainant. After getting this the Complainant went through the “Certificate of Registration” . He noticed that there had been written as “the motor vehicle above described is subject to Hypothecation in favour of L&T FINANCE LTD.”

Thereafter, the Complainant charged the O.P. No. 1 above this but O.P. No. 1 did not give any reasonable answer. After this the Complainant so many times requested O.P. No. 1 to correct the “Certificate of Registration” but he did nothing. On 14.10.2019 O.P. No. 1 refused to correct the “Certificate of Registration” and made slang language and harassed the complainant.

The Complainant is a teacher by profession and he put his signature neither any Hypothecation documents nor any contract paper. The Complainant gave neither the O.P. No. 1 nor O.P. No. 2 his bank cheque nor any Bank Account.

Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before this District Commission praying for an order directing the O.P. No. 1 to correct  the “Certificate of Registration”  of the aforesaid vehicle to the Complainant immediately through competent authority or to return the purchase value with interest and other expenses with regard to purchase the vehicle and for directing the O.P. to pay compensation of Rs. 100000/- for unnecessary harassment, professional loss, mental oppression and loss of prestige.  

Defence Case

The O.P. No. 2 is contesting the case denying the material allegations in the complaint. His specific case is that his name showing as Financer on the registration certificate on the aforesaid motorcycle has been mentioned by the mistake of O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3.

After due service of the notice O.P. No. 1 is contesting this case by filing written version wherein all material allegations of the complainant have been denied by the O.P. No. 1. His specific case is that the prayer of the complainant has already been solved and after getting the complaint this Opposite Party tried heartily to correct the R.C. Book and R.T.O. Murshidabad had already corrected the same. He prays for dismissal of the instant case.

On the basis of the complaint and written version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1

This point is taken up for consideration. The point to be noted is that the Complainant is absent for long period and no one took part in the hearing of argument of this case on behalf of the complainant. However, we peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer. On this point Ld. Advocate for the O.P.s states nothing. Such being the position we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

Point Nos. 2 & 3

Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. 2 is present. He submits that his name has wrongly been mentioned in the Registration Certificate by the O.P. 1 and as such his name should be expunged.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. 1 & 3 submits that O.P. No. 2 is not a necessary party of this case and his name should be expunged.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. 1 & 3 submits that the prayer of the complainant has already been solved and after getting the complaint this Opposite Party tried heartily to correct the R.C. Book and R.T.O. Murshidabad had already corrected the same.

In support of his contention he filed the copy of the corrected “Certificate of Registration” mentioning the name of the owner as Muktadir Azad in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No. WB58AX7436, Engine No. E3Y4E0150875 and Chasis No. ME1SED196J0107262.

After hearing the Ld. Advocates for the Opposite Parties we peruse the materials on record. We find that the corrected registration certificate tallies with the vehicle and its engine no and chasis no as mentioned in the complaint.

The complainant prayed for an order directing the O.P. No. 1 to correct  the “Certificate of Registration”  of the aforesaid vehicle to the Complainant immediately through competent authority or to return the purchase value with interest and other expenses with regard to purchase the vehicle and for directing the O.P. to pay compensation of Rs. 100000/- for unnecessary harassment, professional loss, mental oppression and loss of prestige. 

It is further to be mentioned here that the Complainant is absent for long period i.e. he has not been taking steps for long period. Such being the position we have no other alternative but to believe the version of Opposite Parties.

Regarding the litigation cost and mental pain and agony, we are not inclined to award any money as the Complainant is absent for long period and the Ld. Advocates for the Opposite Parties submit that they took quick action regarding the correction of the Registration Certificate as soon as the Complainant made complaint.

In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 21.11.19 and admitted on 28.11.19. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case is dismissed.

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/169/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

 Member                                                            Member                                        President.