DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 68/2015
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
27.01.2015 09.02.2015 21.07.2015
PETITIONER = Vs. = O.Ps.
Syscomp Infotech Pvt. Ltd 1. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj
Natagarh, H.B. Town More, (Managing Director), of
P.S.-Ghola, Dist-North 24 Parganas, E.M. Bypass, 630,
Kolkata-700113, Uttar Panchanan Gram,
Represented by its Director Kolkata-700100.
Namely Sandip Sadhukhan. 2. Soumik Basu (Sales Executive)
Of E.M. Bypass, 630,
Uttar Panchanan Gram,
Kolkata-700100.
3. Sales Manager,
Of E.M. Bypass, 630,
Uttar Panchanan Gram,
Kolkata-700100.
J U D G E M E N T
Facts of the case, in short, is that the above mentioned company was searching well maintained, good condition running car, and in course of such searching, the complainants company meet with one SOUMIK BASU, sales executive of the Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd having its office at of E.M. Bypass, 630, Uttar Panchanan Gram, Kolkata-700100. M/S Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd deals/saling with car both old and new and said M/S Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd claiming itself as a authorized agent of the Maruti Suzuki.
Complainant stated that the said sales Executive of M/S Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd visited the complainants office at 1 No, Natagarh Main Road, P.S.-Ghola, Dist- North 24 Parganas and declared that they are having as well maintained running condition 2nd hand Estillo Car, which ran only 21916 Km. and submitted a quotation declaring all features and facilities/particulars of the said car.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. Case No.-68/2015
- :: 2:: -
Complainant also stated that the complainant company inspected the quotation and being satisfied with the particulars of the said car as supplied by the OPs company and believing their particulars to be true as the said executive of the OPs company time and again assured the complainant company that being a reputed company of a car dealer, they do not supply any wrong particulars nor worry sale any such car they which fall sort of any particulars supplied by them.
Complainant further stated that being satisfied by the document presentation made by the sales Executive of the OPs company & perusing the particulars of the said car, the complainant company decided to purchase the said car at a consideration of Rs 2, 51, 500/-.
Complainant stated that the being satisfied with the reputation of the company, the complainant company did any suspect anything and the deal was completed on that way sum of Rs 10, 500/- was advanced by the complainant company to the OPs towards earnest company.
Complainant also stated that the OPs company also arranged to get a sum of Rs 2, 00, 000/- towards car loan from HDFC Bank on condition he repay the same by 36 months installments @Rs 7, 106/- per month and the rest amount of the consideration money i.e. Rs 41, 000/- was paid by the complainant company to the OPs company.
Complainant further stated that after observation all formalities towards payment of the total consideration money i.e. Rs 2, 51, 000/- the OPs company i.e. M/S Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd delivered the said car being no-WB-20-Q-8497, Engine No-071546, Chassis no-304256 make with the same condition as delivered by the Sales Executive OPs company on 21.01.2014. Simultaneously with the taking of delivery of the said car, the complainant executed several documents as desired by the OPs company for changing the ownership of the said vehicle.
Complainant stated that after taking delivery of the said car on 21.01.2014 the complainant went on test drive of the said car on 22.01.2014 and by playing and driving the said car, the complainant found/detected some technical defects in the said vehicle and accordingly on 23.01.2014 the complainant took the said vehicle to “Premier Car Care”, an authorized Service Centre of Maruti/Suzuki on repairing maintenance and technical defects/ faulty if, any and after receiving, said vehicle, the said service centre of Maruti Suzuki checked the vehicle history on computer (Software providing by opening the Suzuki) and by opening the
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 3/-
C. C. Case No.-68/2015
- :: 3:: -
vehicle history of the said car, it is found that the said vehicle manufactured by the Maruti/Suzuki in the year 2010 and the last service (maintenance) as provided by the Maruti/Suzuki company on 22.04.2011 by Jalan Distributor, Beleghata Road and it is also found that on 22.04.2011 the said car ran 34278 Km. within 8 months of the date of purchase of the said vehicle. Whereas the OPs company while selling the said car to the complainant company falsely and dishonestly represented and stated to the complainant by way written quotation that the said vehicle ran only 21916 Km. but the fact remains that the said actually ran 34278 Km. upto 21.04.2011 and it is also reported to the complainant by the Engineer of the said authorized service centre Maruti/Suzuki that when the said vehicle proposed to be sold to the OPs complainant by the OPs company, the said vehicle further ran about 60 to 70 Thousand Km. but the OPs company deliberately to the complainant that it only ran 21916 Km. by tampering mileage Maruti all such tampering came into light when the said car was verified/checked by the Maruti Authorized Service Centre.
Complainant also stated that detection of the said problem the complainant informed the matter to the OPs persons No-1 to 3 including company with a request to replace the car or solve the technical problems but each and every occasions the OPs person assured to the complainant “don’t get upset, we do needful and we replace the said car” but finally on 27.03.2014 the OPs company handed over the registration certificate (smart card) to the complainant and informed that if it is not possible to replace or repair the defective car, from the activities of the OPs persons it is crystal clear that from the very inception of dealing of this car, the OPs person had malafide intention to cheat the complainant, had the complainant not been induced by the OPs person about to purchase of the vehicle as per quotation he would not have purchase the same. Hence the complaint.
OPs have contested the case by filing written version.
OPs stated that the there is nothing on record to show either that the reading of the odometer was actually tempered or that even if such tempering was made, it was done at the behest of these OPs. The OPs have neither made any false statement and/or suppression of any material fact to the complainant nor made any change in the reading of the odometer of the car in question and as such all allegations in such regard are denied.
Point for Decision:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 4/-
C. C. Case No.-68/2015
- :: 4:: -
Decision
OPs filed written arguments. Admittedly complainant booked a car with from Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd who has not been impleaded in the present case. According to the OPs Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd is a dealer of cars and also deals with pre-owned car. In case of pre-owned car Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd after buying the same from its previous owners keep this same in his custody in an ‘as is where is’ basis unless the prospective buyers thereof requires a fitness certificate which is under taken Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd in lieu of certain consideration. The car in question is one of such pre-owned where the complainant did not require any such fitness certificate and purchased is as it where is basis’. As such the question or occasion of tempering with the odometer did not arise in the present case. It is also stated in the notes of arguments that checking of odometer do not fall under any assigned mechanical or engineering test and it is carried out on specific request of the customer. In the instant case OPs has stated that there was no such request despite an offer having been made by Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd to have reading of the odometer check and as such the OPs cannot be fastened with the consequence of such alleged tempering of the odometer of the car in question. It is also argued that there was no privity of contract between complainant and the OP No-1 to 3. As such there was no consumer dispute between them. According to the OPs complainant is not ‘Consumer’ under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
It appears from the copy of the documents filed by the complainant that the complainant booked the disputed vehicle from Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd but complainant has not made Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd party in this case. All the documents filed by the complainant relate to Mohan Motor Udyog Pvt. Ltd. These OPs have no deficiency in service to the complainant in respect of the disputed vehicle. Hence we are of the view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OPs.
Hence
It is ordered,
that the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest .
Parties to bear their own cost.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
