This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that the complainant purchased a Honda Make two wheeler CB SHINE SP (DRAM) RED COLOUR CHASSIS NO. ME4JC 731 HG 8059807, ENGINE NO. JC 73E- 80120082, KEY NO. 8620 on 3.10.2014 as described in Road Challan in lieu of cash memo and the said two wheeler was purchased vide Road Challan no. 115 dt. 3.10.2016 through Finance company “CAPITAL FIRST LTD.” valued at Rs. 62450/- only but no cash memo was issued in favour of the complainant inspite of repeated bargaining and from the date of taking delivery/ purchasing of said two wheeler the complainant paid the requisite license fee to the motor vehicles department on 26.12.2016 and the two wheeler was numbered as WB 16AR 8710 and the two wheeler was insured with the ICICI Lomard Motor insurance for the period of 2016 to 2017with yearly premium Rs. 1456/- inclusive of all taxes and both the documentation and payment of fees etc were conducted by the SMS AUTO itself and supplied the papers to the complainant but there are deficiency of service in regard to name of the owner in the insurance policy and the owner in receipt issued by M.V. Deptt. which is causing much difficulties in plying the vehicle on road and in plying the said two wheeler on road for non issuing of blue book by the M.V. Deptt. concerned even after payment of all fees through the SMS AUTO and the complainant visited the dealer as many as 20 times and contacted over mobile to have the BLUE BOOK and for want of which the two wheeler cannot ply on road and requested them to remove the hazardous fact in plying the same without BLUE BOOK because the police authority used to check the same frequently on the road and used to impose fine and penalty in absence of the valid documents and since 26.12.2016 this deficiency in service and lacuna on the part of SMS AUTO has prevented the complainant to make the two wheeler on road for not providing of BLUE BOOK and which resulted the damage caused in tier tube valued approximate of Rs. 5000/- and the police authority was harassing for want of legal papers concerning the said two wheeler from SMS AUTO and penalties by imposing fine as per M.V. Act and the service gross lacuna insufficient improper service arose for 26.12.2016 and finally came up on 18.8.2017 and this is within the limitation period of Consumer Protection Act.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying for direction upon the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and to pay the costs of the suit and to pass an order to issue cash Memo and Blue Book and to give any other relief or reliefs which is/ are complainant is entitled as per law and equity.

The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that the M.V. Department strictly follows the name which appears in the concerned Voter Identity Card of the applicant in issuing any paper relating to the registration of a Vehicle in the name of holder of a Motor Vehicle and also the name of the present complainant appearing in his Voter Identity Card may be in the style of “Dipak Sinharoy” only instead of “Dipak Kumar Sinharoy” as is now claiming by the complainant and unfortunately the complainant has not filed any copy of his “Voter Identity Card” in this case and if the M.V. Department has actually made any mistake in writing the name of the complainant that is exclusively done by the M.V. Department and there cannot be any roll of this opposite party and so far as regards the name appearing in the Road Challan No. 115 dt. 3.10.2016, issued by this opposite party might have been written on the basis of the name of the complainant as it reflected in his Voter Identity Card and the complainant also had the duty to raise objection to the same while he put his signature in the said Road Challan at the space specified for “Customer’s Signature” but he failed to do so and moreover he himself put his initial there instead of his signature where from nobody would be able to ascertain the “Full and Complete name” of the signatory, so there is contributory negligence on the part of the complainant himself. Thus, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the case.

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party.

            The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version. So, it is needless to discuss.

            Complainant did not file written argument. Opposite party filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of opposite party are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite party heard in full.

            From the discussion herein above, the following issues have been framed for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief, if any?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

All the points are taken conjointly for easiness of the discussions of this case.

1. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite party,
2. Complainant is a resident of Mogra, Hooghly. Opposite party has its office at Khadinamore, Station Road, Chinsurah, SMS AUTO. Complainant has made his prayer for a decree of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, for passing order of issuance of cash memo and blue book including cost of the suit and other relief, if any as per law and equity. Thus, valuation of this case is within Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3. First of all, it may be noted that in the evidence complainant has not filed any crack of document in support of his case, but on careful perusals of the record it appears that along with the petition of the complaint complainant files photo copies of road challan issued by opposite party, receipts for payment to Government, road tax of the vehicle concerned, insurance.

Whereas opposite party in support of his defence did not file any document.

It is the specific case of the complainant that in the connected papers of the concerned two wheelers the name of complainant appears as Dipak Sinharoy only instead of Dipak Kumar Sinharoy.Further allegation of the complainant is that he has not been issued any cash memo. Accordingly, being aggrieved thereby, the complainant has filed the case.

Per contra the specific case of the opposite party as appears from written version of opposite party that the instant case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The principal allegation of the complainant is that his name has been erroneously has been mentioned in the receipt issued by the M.V. Department, Hooghly, so, the M.V. Department should have been made a party in this case as blue book and the relevant papers of the two wheelers have been issued by the M.V. Department, Hooghly and not by the opposite party. Thus, in absence of M.V. Department, Hooghly actual dispute raised by the complainant cannot be solved at all.

Regard being had upon the submissions advanced from the end of both sides and taken into the materials on record it may be noted that M.V. Department strictly follows the name, which appears in the concerned ‘Voter Identity Card/ Aadhaar Card etc’ of the applicant in issuing any paper relating to the registration of a Vehicle in the name of holder of a Motor Vehicle. Here also, the name of the present complainant appearing in his Voter Identity Card may be in the style of Dipak Sinharoy only instead of Dipak Kumar Sinharoy, as is now claiming by the complainant. Unfortunately, the complainant has not filed any copy of his Voter Identity Card in this case by which we can see what is the actual name appearing in the voter identity card of the complainant. So, in such circumstances, even if M.V. Department has actually made any mistake in registering the name of the complainant, i.e. exclusively done by the M.V. Department. But here complainant did not make M.V. Department, Hooghly, West Bengal as one of the parties of this case and to the mind of us concerned M.V. Department is a necessary party but complainant did not made said department one of the parties of this case.

Further it may be noted that ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite party has submitted that opposite party strongly denied the statements of para 5 of complaint petition to the effect that opposite party has not issued any cash memo against the purchase of the vehicle or that it is opposite party who is in unfair trade practice illegally. It is also submitted that in fact, the cash memo was duly issued to the customer instantly and complainant never before complained of regarding non-receipt of the same. It is also submitted that however, the opposite party can issue another copy of cash memo till now as cash memo is prepared through computer process.

In fact, ld. Counsel of the complainant did not place any strong reply against the above submissions of ld. Counsel of opposite party.

In the above backdrop we are of the view that complainant has not come with proper evidence and complainant did not make the M.V. Department a party of this case, but M.V. Department is very much a necessary party. Thus, to the mind of us complainant case appears to be sans any substance and liable to be dismissed.

Hence,

it is

ordered

that the instant complaint case being no. C.C. 177 of 2017 is thus dismissed on contest without cost.

Let copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/ their ld. Advocates on record by hand with proper acknowledgment/ sent by ordinary course for information and necessary action.