31.07.2015
MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER
The instant Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the OP challenging the judgment and order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas in C.C.Case No. 119 of 2013, directing the OP/Appellant to refund to the Complainant/Respondent Rs. 20,000/- and also to pay to the Complainant/ Respondent Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost within one month from the date of the order, failing which interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue on the said amount for the entire period of default. The OP/Appellant was further directed to pay to the Complainant/Respondent Rs. 25,000/- and to deposit with the Consumer Welfare Fund Rs. 75,000/- as punitive damages.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondent/Complainant purchased one second-hand TATA Magic Car (Chassis No. 445111ERZR20409, Engine No. 275IDI05ERZ520988) from the Appellant/OP for Rs. 1,80,000/-, as appearing from the written contract for sale dated 16.2.2012 entered into by and between the Respondent/Complainant and the Appellant/OP. The Appellant/OP also assured the Respondent/Complainant that the Appellant/OP would complete ‘within 20 days’ the documentation in favour of the Respondent/Complainant in respect of the said vehicle against additional charges of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the Respondent/Complainant. Accordingly, the Respondent/Complainant paid the aforesaid amount in full as averred in the Petition of Complaint. But after handing over the vehicle to the Respondent/Complainant, the Appellant/OP did not complete the documentation in respect of the vehicle in favour of the Respondent/ Complainant as assured at the time of delivery of the vehicle to the Respondent/ Complainant despite receiving the charges of Rs. 20,000/- on account of the said purpose. This apart, it is also alleged by the Respondent/Complainant that the vehicle handed over was defective and the Respondent/Complainant had to repair the vehicle at his own cost. Such default on behalf of the Appellant/OP in completion of the documentation of the vehicle in favour of the Respondent/Complainant indicates unfair practice as alleged in the Petition of Complaint. In this factual background, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order in the aforesaid manner. Aggrieved by such order the OP has approached this Commission by filing the instant Appeal.
The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP submits that the Appellant/OP sold the second-hand vehicle in question to the Respondent/Complainant on as-is-where-is basis and the same was taken delivery of by the Respondent/Complainant after checking the vehicle by a person selected by the Respondent/Complainant himself as evident from the Contract for Sale dated 16.2.2012 and hence, the allegation of defect in the vehicle does not stand to reason.
The Ld. Advocate further submits that the registration of the name of the Respondent/Complainant with the Motor Vehicle Department, Barasat, in respect of the vehicle was done in favour of the Respondent/Complainant as is evident from the change of name from Bharat Goenka to Ashoke Bose as well as from the change of Registration Number of the vehicle from WB-26R-1505 to WB-25D 9019, as revealed from the documents of M.V. Particulars.
The Ld. Advocate further submits that the Appellant/OP completed all the formalities regarding the registration and other documentation in respect of the vehicle, but as per the procedure concerned those are directly sent to the person concerned, i.e. the Respondent/ Complainant herein, by the concerned authorities and that such documents are not handed over to any third party as is the Appellant/OP herein and hence, the Appellant/OP has not committed any unfair practice, as alleged, as the procedure of documentation in question was beyond the control of the Appellant/OP.
The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the aforesaid fact, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside, it being improper and unjust.
On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant submits that the admitted position of the Appellant/OP in the Written Version, as available on records, to the effect that the Appellant/OP being a middleman has no locus standi to execute any Agreement for Sale of the vehicle in question, indicates that the Appellant/OP committed unfair practice.
The Ld. Advocate further submits that the unfair practice on the part of the Appellant/OP is reinforced from his act of receiving charges for documentation in respect of the vehicle in favour of the Respondent/Complainant knowing well that those were beyond the control of the Appellant/OP as submitted at present.
The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the unfair practice on the part of the Appellant/OP, as aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order should be sustained.
We have heard both the sides, considered their submission and perused the materials on records.
Materials on records reveal that the Respondent/Complainant took delivery of the second-hand vehicle after checking the vehicle by the own person of the Respondent/ Complainant. It is also revealed that all the formalities of the Motor Vehicle Department were completed and the name of the owner of the vehicle was also changed from Bharat Goenka to Ashoke Bose. Materials on records further reveal that the formalities of insurance in the name of the Respondent/Complainant were also arranged by the Appellant/OP with the Insurance Company on 17.2.2012 and Rs. 12,734/- were also paid for insurance charges for the period from 17.2.2012 to 16.2.2013 and tax was also paid in the name of the Respondent/Complainant for the period from 8.10.2011 to 7.4.2012 as averred in the Memo of Appeal.
The foregoing facts and evidence on records lead us to hold that there was no deficiency in service or unfair practice on the part of the Appellant/OP.
Therefore, the instant Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order is set aside. The Petition of Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
