Date of filing :18.4.2017
Judgment : Dt.13.3.2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Sri Sunil Kumar Sharma against opposite parties (referred OPs hereinafter) namely (1) Sri Ashish Chakraborty, (2) Dewar’s Garage Ltd. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Case of the Complainant in brief is that on 11.1.2016, the Complainant booked one four wheeler car namely “Maruti ERTIGA” being model No.VDISHV (New) white colour with the OP No.1 who is Sub-dealer under OP No.2 at his Branch Office at 210/1A Rashbehari Avenue, 2nd floor Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700 029, depositing a sum of Rs.11,000/- with the OP No.1 at the said office. It is further stated by the Complainant that on 25.10.2016 he received an order booking/commitment and checklist issued by the OP No.2 wherein booking date and model is mentioned as order No.SOB1600089, booking date 25.10.2016 for “Maruti ERTIGA” model No.VDISHVS (New) superior white and the price of the same is fixed at Rs.6,71,428.59 only and the tentative delivery date was fixed on 29.11.2016. The Complainant has further stated that on 27.10.2016 the Complainant made another payment of Rs.1,35,000/- to the OP No.1 against valid money receipt and subsequently on 31.12.2016 a further payment of Rs.42,000/- was made to the OP No.1 and on 28.01.2017 an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- was paid to the OP No.1 by the Complainant. The Complainant has further stated that the OP No.1 on behalf of the Complainant, had applied for a loan to Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. for an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- towards purchase of the said vehicle and on 16.02.2017 the said loan was credited to the account of the OP No.2 against which the OP No.2 issued money receipt of the said amount as full and final payment for the said vehicle. The Complainant has further stated that in the said money receipt of Rs.6,30,000/- to booking No. and Model No. of the car have been changed. The Complainant has stated that on several occasions he requested the OPs to deliver the car as per description of booking but to no avail and on contrary, exerted pressure on him to accept a different model. Having no other alternative, the Complainant served a demand notice dt.8.3.2017 through his Ld. Advocate upon the opposite parties.
Accordingly, the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OPs to hand over one “Maruti Ertiga” four wheeler car to the Complainant, to pay Rs.1,54,571.41 with interest, to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- as to litigation cot.
Notices were served but the OP No.1 did not turn up. Therefore, the case was proceeded ex-parte against OP No.1.
The OP No.2 contested the filing written version.
In his written version, the OP No.2 has stated inter alia, that on behalf of Complainant an amount of Rs.1,88,000/- was paid to the OP No.2 and subsequently, an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- was also disbursed in favour of the OP No.2. As regards the model of the said car, the OP No.2 has stated that the Complainant, by a letter dt.31.12.2016 requested the OP No.1 to change the model of the said car. It is further stated by the OP No.2 that on request of the Complainant, the subsequent change in model was made.
The Complainant and the OP No.2 adduced evidence followed by cross examination in the form of questionnaire and reply thereto.
The Complainant annexed money receipt dt.11.1.2016, 27.10.2016, 31.12.2016, order booking/commitment checklist, receipt dt.28.10.2016, 16.2./2017 issued by Dewar’s Garage, letter dt.19.10.2016 issued by Dy. Secy., S.T.A., W.B., Advocate’s letter dt.8.3.20o17, letter issued by Ld. Advocate of OP No.1.
In course of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint. Ld. Advocate for OP No.2 submitted that as per direction of the Complainant they supplied the car in question.
Points for determinations
- Whether the OPs have deficiency in providing service?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.
Admittedly, the Complainant booked a four wheeler car namely “Maruti Ertiga” being Model No.VDISHVS (New) white colour on 25.10.2016.
Admittedly, entire amount of consideration was paid in respect of the car delivered to the OP No.2. The specific allegation of the Complainant is that the OPs in spite of receiving entire amount of consideration delivered a car which was not as per specification of the booking document. The OP No.2 has also admitted that the car was not delivered as per specification of booking but the reason behind that the Complainant himself by a letter dt.31.12.2016 requested the OP No.2 to change the model of the car which the OP did accordingly. The OP No.2 has filed copy of a letter dt.31.12.2016 issued by the Complainant. In course of argument, the Complainant has submitted that the said letter has not been issued by him as the OPs manufactured the same.
However, it is observed that the Complainant did not take any step to seek opinion of a hand writing expert so that his claim regarding manufacturing of the said letter could be substantiated. In absence of such step on the part of the Complainant, we take the said letter into consideration. It is evident therefrom that the Complainant himself requested the OPs to change the model of the vehicle in question.
Considering such circumstances, we are of opinion that the Complainant failed to substantiate his allegation.
In the result, the Consumer Complainant does not succeed.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/229/2017 is dismissed on contest against OP No.2 and dismissed ex-parte against OP No.1 but without any order as to cost.
