District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/239/2022
(Date of Filing:-06.12.2022)
- Smt. Sushmita Barai
Permanent resident of Nabadwip Baral
Ghat Road
P.O. & P.S. Nabadwip
District:- Nadia, Pin:- 741301.
Presently residing at
Illampur, P.O. Tinna, P.S. Pandua, District:- Hooghly
- Sk. Jahir alias Pintu Proprietor of M/S Sk. Jahir Car Seller and Purchaser,
Krishnanpur, P.O. Debanandapur, P.S. Chinsurah
District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712123
- Md. Samsuddin Motor Garage
Vill:- Beledanga, P.O. Khanyan, P.S. Pandua,
Dist:- Hooghly Pin:- 712147
……..Opposite Parties
Before:-
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Choudhury, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd.27.03.2024
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the alleged deviation from the commitments of the OPs in the matter of sale of a car to the complainant and showing indifference and reluctance at the post sale stage, towards transferring the vehicle in the purchaser’s name on observation of necessary technical formalities under the extant motor vehicle rules, the instant case has been filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The backdrop of the case as depicted by the Complainant, in a nutshell is as follows.
At the very outset it will be worth mentioning that the case ran ex parte against the Opposite Parties as the Opposite Parties preferred to shun the proceedings of the case.
Reportedly, on 22.02.2018 an unregistered sale agreement was executed between the Complainant and OP 1, a dealer of old cars, for selling a car bearing registration No.WB-42Q-3946 against a consideration money of Rs.3,90,000/-
Here the Complainant mentions that OP 2 dealing in car repairing and maintenance and being an agent of OP 1, acted as a liaising agent.
The petitioner claims to have paid Rs.50,000/- to the OP 1 on 22.02.2018 in cash and on a later date (specific date is not mentioned) made further payment of Rs.3,40,000/- and that is also in cash. Thus the petitioner claims to have paid the entire consideration money to the OP 1 by procuring financial assistance from her father and husband.
Subsequently another amount of Rs.8000/- was paid to the opposite parties for transferring the said vehicle in the name of the Complainant purchaser.
But allegedly OP 1 did not take any step for transferring the vehicle in the Complainant’s name on one plea or the other. Repeated persuasions by the Complainant in this matter proved to be a futile exercise.
Finding no other way the Complainant was compelled to lodge a complaint with the concerned P.S. on 18.03.2019 and to send a legal notice to the OP 1 on 21.10.2019.
Responding to the legal notice OP 1 took a further time of three months for implementing the said transfer with effect from 01.11.2019.
However as there was no indication of taking initiative by OP 1 in the matter of transferring the vehicle in the Complainant’s name the Complainant was compelled to lodge a further complaint with the same P.S. on 29.09.2020.
At this juncture both the opposite parties visited the Complainant’s place and expressed their helplessness assigning the reason to the ongoing pandemic situation and committed to take steps to make the necessary transfer once the pandemic situation was over.
Again on 20.04.2021 when the Complainant met the OP 1, helplessness was again expressed on the ground that functioning of the office of the Regional Transport Authority was not regular.
However even after restoration of normalcy in daily life and functioning of Government offices, the OP showed no inclination towards making the required transfer.
Thus cause of action arose on 18.03.2019, 21.10.2019, 01.11.2019, 29.09.2020 and finally on 24.04.2021 when it was established that the Opposite party 1 had no intention to transfer the name in favour of the Complainant for which a payment of Rs,8,000/- is claimed to have been done by the Complainant.
. Considering the OP’s gross indifference and reluctance towards materializing the transfer of the vehicle in the Complainant’s name through official process as deficiency of service, the Complainant approaches to the Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the OP to take necessary steps to make the said transfer, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and loss and to pay further Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation cost.
The Complainant along with his complaint petition has annexed copies of legal notice sent to OP 1, reply received thereof, certain loan receipt of some Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd, involving an amount of Rs.1,99,999/- in the name of one Mr. Shrimanta Basu and one RO-Bill-Tax Invoice of one Maya Automobile in the name of one Shri Bidyut Kanti Mallik.
Besides, the Complainant has also submitted through Firisti, along with her BNA 1) a no-dues certificate issued by that Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., 2) another loan receipt involving an amount of Rs.80,504/- of the same fiancé Company in the name of Mr. Shrimanta Basu, 3) a purported declaration signed by the OPs in Rs.20/- stamp paper admitting the receipt of Rs.50,000/- towards the sale of the vehicle in question, 4) Statement of accounts of the finance Company as mentioned before in respect of that Shrimanta Basu,
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records, it transpires that the complainant is a consumer so far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.
The complainant and the OP are resident/having their office within the geographical jurisdiction of this District Commission i.e. within the District of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Apart from filing a ‘written objection’ in a perfunctory manner OPs did not make their appearance in course of proceedings of the case.
In the ‘written objection’ some routine terms like ‘not maintainable’, barred by the principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence’, ‘based upon false, fraudulent, concocted allegation’, barred by law of limitation’ etc have been used without assigning reasons for using the terms.
However it is admitted in the written objection that the OP is ready to make the much awaited transfer. It is also claimed that they expressed their willingness to observe the necessary formalities for the transfer by sending letter to the complainant and by making phone calls.
Decision with reasons
Materials on records are perused. Unquestionably the complaint petition suffers from quite a few inconsistencies and insufficient documentation. The Complainant has not submitted copies of the sale agreement and money receipts. It is nowhere clarified that how the persons named in the loan documents and tax invoices viz. Shrimanta Basu and Bidyut Kanti Mallik are related to this complaint petition. For these reasons only the petition deserves dismissal. But the admissions and statements incorporated in the written objection consciously or unconsciously by the OP 1, the admission made in the stamp paper confirming receipt of Rs.50,000/- against the sale and the response of OP’s lawyer to the legal notice of the Complainant indicate that there was a sale of an old car to the Complainant by OP 1 the transfer of which in the name of the Complainant is awaited.
Considering all these aspects the Commission is of the opinion that there was deficiency of service and deliberate negligence on the OP 1’s part.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.239/2022 be and the same is allowed ex parte but in part.
The Commission hereby directs OP 1 to make all necessary arrangements to transfer the vehicle in the Complainant’s name within 45(forty five) days from the date of this order.
Non-compliance of this order within the stipulated date will make OP 1 liable to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Consumer Legal Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in.
