J U D G E M E N T

                Interference of this Forum has been sought for by the Complainant contending gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in rendering necessary service towards the Complainant by the Opposite Party. 

    In epigrammatic the case as stated in the petition of complaint is that the Complainant had purchased an Auto being No. WB 15 A 0876, Engine No. AEMBKK 99804, Chassis No. 24 F  BKK 86410 along with the ‘Route Permit’ from the Opposite Party by executing an ‘Agreement’ on 10.08.2006 for the total  consideration amount of  Rs. 2,00,000/- only  and the Opposite Party assured and promised to arrange the Route Permit for the said Auto in the name of the Complainant as soon as possible and it was also settled by and between the both parties that till the said Route Permit is obtained in the name of the Complainant, the Complainant would run the said Auto on the strength of the Route Permit in the name of the Opposite Party. Accordingly the Complainant had already paid the entire consideration money of  Rs. 2,00,000/- only to the Opposite Party on the good faith and the Opposite Party had duly delivered the possession of the said Auto to the Complainant and also had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the Complainant and the Complainant has run the said Auto by strength of that Power of Attorney executed by the Opposite Party.   

             But the Opposite Party did not take any initiative for issuing a new permit for plying the same in the name of the Complainant is spite of several requests made by the Complainant towards the Opposite Party and all of a sudden the Opposite Party locked his Route Permit regarding the said Auto and for that the Complainant is unable to ply the same which he had purchased on good faith by paying the entire consideration amount for the said Auto including the Route Permit and by such act of the Opposite Party the Complainant harassed and suffered a financial loss of Rs. 500/- only per day from the date of locking the said permit in the name of the Opposite Party by strength of which the Complainant had plying the said Auto till that day,  as this Auto is the only source of income of this Complainant and  the Complainant severally asked and requests the Opposite Party for delivering/transferring the said Route Permit  in respect of the said Auto in question.

              Ultimately the Complainant sent a legal notice on 26.09.2012 to the Opposite Party asking him to transfer the Route Permit in the name of the Complainant or for arranging for a new Route Permit in the name of the Complainant but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to it, what amounts deficiency and/or negligence in rendering service towards him, for which he has to suffer harassment and mental agony and prayed for compensation. Hence, this case is filed seeking adequate redressal.

               Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party filed the Written Version denying each and every allegation made by the Complainant in the petition of complaint contending inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action, and is not maintainable either in fact or in law and is totally false.

             The case as a whole as stated by the Opposite Party in the Written Version, in terse, is that, the Opposite Party is/was not at all connected with the Complainant for selling the said Auto in question as alleged by the Complainant as the Opposite Party has/had no monitory transaction with the Complainant and the consideration amount paid by the Complainant has taken by one Susanta Nayek, the witness of the said ‘Agreement’ dated 10.082006  and the Complainant had paid no amount towards this Opposite Party for which the Complainant is not the ‘Consumer’ under this Opposite Party.  This  Opposite Party never signed/executed any ‘Power of Attorney’ in favour of the Complainant and if the Complainant has filed any ‘Power of Attorney’ before the Forum as alleged definitely the same was/is a forged and/or fabricated one. The Complainant had  also filed a criminal case before filing this case, vide Serampore PS Case No. 307/2013 dated 02.08.2013,  U/S 404  of the  IPC  which is presently pending before the Ld. Court of the ACJM, Serampore.

              Moreover, the said Auto in question purchased by the Complainant is/was for commercial use exclusively. This Complainant is working at a Private Sector Company named M/s Ansu Commercial and also took the lease of a Bus of Route No. 2 alongwith one Raja Dasgupta vide Registration No. WB 15 A – 4129 on partnership basis from its Owner Krishna Pal. So the Complainant has filed the instant case suppressing many true fact before this Forum and thus  the Opposite Party had/has no negligence and/or deficiency on  their part in rendering the service towards the Complainant and the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the case.

                                 Points for Consideration  

             1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?

             2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service

                                    on the part of the O.P ?                             

             3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

                                       Decision with reasons

             All the points are taken up together for consideration for convenience and brevity.

              The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that whether the Opposite Party is liable to transfer the existing Route Permit and/or arrange for a new Route Permit regarding the said Auto in question in question towards the Complainant or not.

             In coming into conclusion regarding the present dispute we have gone through the Complaint and Written Version and also critically appreciated and scrutinized the material documents on record.

             On overall evaluation of the argument made before us by the Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant and also the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party and the material evidences on record, it is evident that admittedly an ‘Agreement’ was actually executed on 14.08.2006 by and between the Complainant and the Opposite Party for selling the said Auto in question including the Route Permit of the said Auto for a total consideration amount of  Rs. 2,00,000/-  only.

              It is manifestly revealed from the photocopies of the documents (‘Agreement’ dated 14.08.2006) that Complainant had already paid the entire consideration money of Rs. 2,00,000/- only to the Opposite Party and the Opposite party admitted to receive the sais amount by signing the said ‘Agreement’ dated 14.08.2006 and to sell the said Auto in question along with the Route Permit of Route No. 193 (from Serampore West to Rishra gate No. 4) and thus the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party.

              The record reveals from the photocopies of the documents (Power of Attorney dated 10.08.2006) to permit the Complainant to run the said Auto being No. WB 15 A 0876, Engine No. AEMBKK 99804, Chassis No. 24 F  BKK 86410, under the Route Permit 193 (from  Serampore West to  Rishra gate No. 4) in favour of the Complainant and the said document was duly signed by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party neither disputed nor challenged the signature in the said ‘Power of Attorney’ dated 10.08.2006 or refer the same to the Hand Writing Expert for examining the same and to submit the report which concludes that the signature in the said ‘Power of Attorney’ dated 10.08.2006 is the original signature of the Opposite Party.

             Moreover it is found from the Written Version submitted by the Opposite Party that the Opposite Party had not received any amount from the Complainant and the consideration amount paid by the Complainant has taken by one Susanta Nayek, the witness of the said ‘Agreement’ dated 10.08.2006  and the Complainant had paid no amount towards this Opposite Party for which the Complainant is not the ‘Consumer’ under this Opposite Party. But from the photocopy of the document (‘Agreement’ dated 14.08.2006) filed by the Complainant it is clearly evident that the Complainant had already paid and the Opposite Party had actually received the said consideration amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- only. So no doubt the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under the Opposite Party as per the C. P. Act, 1986.

              The Opposite Party further submitted that the Complainant is working at a Private Sector Company named  M/s  Ansu Commercial and also  took the lease of a Bus of Route No. 2 along with one Raja Dasgupta vide Registration No. WB 15 A – 4129 on partnership basis from its Owner Krishna Pal. But on scrutinizing the entire case record nowhere within the case record/annexure  it is found that the Opposite Party ever filed and/or submitted any document and/or any scrap of paper in support of his above stated averments against the Complainant.

             Thus perusing the case record and considering the hearing of both parties it is manifestly evident that the Complainant had executed an ‘Agreement’ on 10.08.2006  with the Opposite Party for purchasing an Auto including the Route Permit of Route No. 193 (from  Serampore West to Rishra gate No. 4) of the said Auto for his livelihood and accordingly had paid the entire consideration money of Rs. 2,00,000/- only to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party had duly received the said amount  by signing in the said ‘Agreement’ dated 10.08.2006 and also executed a ‘Power of Attorney’ on the same day for allowing the Complainant to run the said Auto in the same route till the Opposite Party was/is not arranged to transfer the said Route in favour of the Complainant and/or till a new Route Permit was/is arrange for the Complainant and the record also reveals that the Opposite Party has miserably failed to do the said committed Transfer of the said Route Permit and/or for arrangement to issue a new one in favour of the Complainant.

             Moreover, it is revealed from the record that the Opposite Party revoked / cancelled the said ‘Power of Attorney’ for which the Complainant was/is restrained to run the said Auto in question for which his livelihood was/is disturbing and the Opposite Party never denied the said fact.

              So, considering the whole situation and the instant fact and circumstances of the case, unanimously this Forum decided that the Opposite Party is still obliged and liable to do the necessary and needful either to transfer the existing Route Permit in the name of the Complainant or to arrange for issuing a new Route Permit of the Route No. 193 (from Serampore West to Rishra gate No. 4) in favour of the Complainant within a reasonable period.

             Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, the Forum is inclined to hold that the Complainant has successfully proved his case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.

             In short, the Complainant deserves success.

             In the result, we proceed to pass     

                                                                                            O R D E R 

             That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party with cost of Rs. 8,000/- only payable by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

              That the Opposite Party is directed to do the necessary and needful either to transfer the existing Route Permit in the name of the Complainant or to arrange for issuing a new Route Permit of the Route No. 193 (from Serampore West to Rishra gate No. 4) in favour of the Complainant within two months from the date of this ‘Order.

              That the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- only to the Complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

             In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Party within a period of six months from the date of payment of the requisite fees to the Opposite Party, in that case the Opposite Party shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per day, from the date of actual payment by the Complainant till full satisfaction of the decree, and 50% of such amount shall be paid to the Complainant and rest 50% shall be deposited by the Opposite Party to the Consumer Legal Aid Fund.

             Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.

             Written & Typed by me Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.