West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/51/2014

Samiran Biswas. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sainath Automotivesment. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

&

Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay Member.

 

Complaint Case No.51/2014

 

Samiran Biswas…………….………Complainant.

Versus

                                                                     Sainath Automotives………..….……..Opp. Party.

 

For the Complainant: Mr. Sourav Ghosh, Advocate.

For the O.P.               : Mr. Sri Surojit Dutta, Advocate.

 

 

Decided on: - 17/08/2015

                               

ORDER

                 Bibekananda Pramanik, President - Complainant case, in brief, is that on 30/10/2011, he went to the shop of the opposite party no.1, who is a dealer of Hero Moto Corporation for purchasing a new Hero Splendor Pro Motor-cycle and on payment of Rs.47,296/-, he purchased the said motor cycle from opposite party no.1.  At that time, as advised by the opposite party no.1, the complainant paid him Rs.3,870/- for registration cost and road tax.  After purchasing the motor cycle, the complainant brought the same in his house and few days thereafter, he went to the RTO, Paschim Medinipur with his said new motor cycle for registration and at that time, the concerned RTO, Paschim Medinipur denied to make registration of the motor cycle by stating that the Chassis no. & Engine no. of that motor cycle has already been registered vide registration no.WB-36B-1977.  Hearing that, the complainant went to the shop of opposite party no.1 and stated the fact in details and requested him to change the motor cycle or to return back the paid amount but the opposite party no.1 denied to do so.  Thereafter, the complainant lodged a written complaint before Kharagpur Local P.S., on basis of which, a police case

Contd…………..P/2

 

                                                          

( 2 )

 

under Section 420 of  IPC dated  28/07/12 was started against the opposite party.   It is stated that for such act of the OP and for such refusal to replace the motor cycle by a new one, the complainant has sustained great financial loss.  Hence this complaint.

                   Opposite party no.1 has contested this case by filing a written objection.  opposite party no.2 did not contest this case.  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that due to bona-fide mistake, the sold tag was not hung on that  particular motor cycle  in question and therefore the complainant selected that motor cycle and as the Sold tag was not hung due to bona-fide mistake, the said motor cycle was sold to the complainant and delivered with a temporary registration no. in favour of the complainant.  The complainant took delivery of the said motor cycle with temporary registration no. which had validity of 30 days from the date of issue.  The complainant took his motor cycle for permanent registration in the office of the Registering Authority at Midnapore within 30 days i.e. in the month of November 2011 and the said bona-fide mistake was noted and taken into consideration.  The  opposite party instructed the complainant over mobile phone to bring the said motor cycle to the show room of the opposite party no.1 but the complainant stated demanding Rs.1,00,000/- and he also threatened the opposite party with false criminal case and compensation proceeding, which  the opposite party denied to pay.  Finding no other alternative, the sales personnel of the opposite party wrote a letter dated 24/02/12 to the complainant requesting him to bring the said motor cycle to their show room with all documents so as to deliver a new motor cycle of the same value and in the said letter, it was further assured that no charges will be demanded towards insurance etc.  Said letter was sent by registered post with AD but as no acknowledgement was returned, so, the opposite party obtained a print out web site postal department certificate wherfrom it was found that the said letter of the opposite party was delivered to the complainant on 29/02/14.  Despite receipt of the said letter, the complainant did not respond to the same.  It is stated that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is further stated by the opposite party that the present case is barred by limitation in as much as the complainant came to know about  such fact as alleged by him, in month of November 2011 and the present complaint has been filed long after 2 years from that date of knowledge.

 

Contd…………..P/3

                                                          

 

                                                                                             - ( 3 ) -                  

 

Point for decision

 

                               Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for?   

 

Decision with reasons

At the very outset, it is to be stated that in this particular case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party has adduced any evidence whatsoever but they have relied upon some documents so filed by them in this case.  Admittedly, the complainant purchased a new Hero Splendor Pro Motor Cycle from the opposite party no.1 on 30/10/2011, on payment of Rs.47,296/-  and he also paid Rs.3,870/- to the opposite party for registration cost etc.  It is also not denied and disputed that at the time of registration of the said vehicle, it was noticed that the said particular motor cycle has already been registered.  According to the opposite party, due to bona-fide mistake, the said motor cycle was delivered and sold to the complainant and when the complainant informed about such mistake, then they asked the complainant to bring the motor cycle to the show room but the complainant started demanding huge amount towards compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and he also threatened with false criminal cases and proceeding for compensation, which the opposite party denied to pay.   As against this, it is the case of the complainant that he requested the opposite party to change the motor cycle or to return back the paid amount but the opposite party no.1 denied to do so.  We further find from the w/o filed by the opposite party that denying the said case of the complainant, the opposite party has stated that they wrote a letter dated 24/02/12 to the complainant requesting him to bring the said motor cycle to their show room with all documents for replacing the same with a new motor cycle of the same value and same model.  But in spite of service of the said notice on 29/02/12, the complainant did not turn up.  In support of his said case, the opposite party has filed the copy of the said letter and a letter of the concerned post master along with a web site print out copy.  Form those documents, we find that the opposite party by their letter dated 24/2/12, requested the complainant to bring the said motor cycle to their show room along with all documents for replacing the same with a new motor cycle and the said letter was duly served upon the opposite party on 24/02/12.  Complainant produced no document to show that he requested the opposite party for making delivery a new motor cycle or for refund of the price of the motor cycle.  It thus appears that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Moreover, we find that the cause of action

Contd…………..P/4

 

                                                          

                                                                                           - ( 4 ) -

arose in the month of  November 2011, when the complainant for the first time came to know about such alleged misdeed by the opposite party when the RTO refused to register the vehicle in question.  But the present complaint has been filed on 30/4/14 i.e. long after the period of limitation of 2 years as provided under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.   No petition for condonation of such long delay in filing the complaint has been filed.  It this appears that the present case is barred by limitation.  We are therefore of the view that the complaint case must fail.

 

                                            Hence, it is,

                                                                Ordered,

                                                                               that the complaint case no.51/2014 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.              

 Dictated & Corrected by me    

                    Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                                Sd/-

               President                                Member                                         President

                                                                                                                   D.C.D.R.F.

                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur