Judgement
This appeal is directed against the final order passed by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri dated 25/04/2018 in reference to CC/58/2017. The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the complainant Rahul Ranjan Pan has purchased a Yamaha FZ motorbike from Priyadarshini Automobile (the appellant) on the 31st March, 2017 at the showroom price of Rs. 97,358. Out of the said amount he paid Rs. 39,559 in cash, rest amount was paid by financial terms of loan. At the time of such purchase, the appellant no. 1 had assured him to give a discount of Rs. 6,000 from the same price of the motorbike. Subsequently, the complainant/respondent came to know that the said motorbike was already registered in the name of appellant no. 2 National Motors. Complainant then and then went to the shop of OP No. 1 and enquired about the actual position of the motorbike. Then the appellant no. 1 started to misbehave with him in respect of the fact that the appellant no. 1 has intentionally sell out the motorbike which was not firsthand one. The further case of the complainant/respondent is that the appellant no. 1 was intentionally harassing him for not furnishing the RTO registration certificate and other related documents of the bike. For that reason, he issued a notice upon the appellant no. 1 for settlement of the disputes and other issues but the appellant no. 1 did not make any response. Then he lodged a written complaint before CA and FBP office of Jalpaiguri on 13/7/2017. The appellants were asked to attain for the negotiation before the said Jalpaiguri office but they intentionally did not turn up there. So, finding no other alternative, he came to the Ld. Consumer Forum with consumer complaint claiming compensations. The appellant no. 1 and 2 has contested the case by filing separate written objection and deny all the material allegations of the complainant/respondent and their positive case was that vehicle was registered in the name of appellant no. 2, National Motor. The respondent was agreed to purchase the said vehicle on the condition that he will get discount and ultimately the appellant no.1 gave discount up to the Rs. 6,000 with condition that the respondent to bear all the incidental cost and expenses for transfer of ownership and accordingly the price was settled Rs. 51.358. And one Bussan Auto Finance India Pvt. Ltd. has given a loan to the price of the vehicle after deducting the cash payment of the said price money of Rs. 51,358. The further case of the appellants are that the instant motorbike that is the subject matter of the case was a demo vehicle and it never plied on the road. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellants.
On the basis of pleading of both sides and after consulting the evidences and documents of both sides of the case Ld. Forum has adjudicated the dispute on 25/04/2018 and found that the OP No. 1 was guilty for committing unfair trade practice for which innumerous consumers has suffered loss and injury for such unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant no. 1 and for that reason, the Ld. D.C.D.R.F has adjudicated the dispute in favour of the complainant/respondent. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the Ld. D.C.D.R.F has mis conceived the facts and circumstances of the case and has committed error at the time of adjudication in law and in fact without application of real mind and hence liable to be dismissed. The appeal was admitted on merit and the proper notice was issued upon the respondent who recorded his appearance through Ld. Advocate and contested the appeal.
D E C I S I O N S W I T H R E A S O N S
At the time of hearing of the appeal it was pointed out that as per loan agreement Rs. 76,500 was sanctioned, principal amount was fixed Rs. 57,000 and interest was Rs. 19,500. The complainant/respondent at the time of booking the bike paid Rs. 39,559 in cash and the rest of the amount was paid financial terms of loan to the tune of Rs. 51,800 which was credited in the account of appellant no. 2 that is National Motors. But Ld. Forum has asked this appellant no. 1 to pay the refund all the price of the motorbike to the tune of Rs. 1,16,158 and compensation of Rs. 20,000 which exclusively tantamounts to be illegal whereas the price money of the bike actually was received by the original dealer of the Yamaha FZ motorbike that is appellant no. 2 National Motors. He pointed out that the bike was a demo bike of the company and they had handed over the said bike to the original dealer that is appellant no. 2 who had authorized sub dealers and one of them is the appellant no. 1 establishment where the demo vehicle was stationed for showing the same to the customers and the original demo bike are registered in the name of the original dealer. The demo bike was not plied in the road and at the time of adjudication no mechanical test was there and the Ld. Forum was not directed for any mechanical test to take the meter reading of the bike to hold the actual run of the said motorbike before the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant/respondent from the shop of appellant no. 1. He further pointed out that the Ld. Forum had adjudicated that the appellant no.1 had charged the price of the motorbike upon the complainant at a higher rate than the sale price to M/s National Motors. This piece of adjudication on the part of the Ld. Forum is not tenable in the eye of law as because both the invoices of sale in respect of National Motors and in respect of the complainant/respondent the difference can be easily identifiable. He pointed out that the registration certificate of National Motors shows the sale price as Rs. 82,680 whereas the ex-showroom price charged from the complainant/respondent related to Rs. 76,937 that is Rs. 6,000/- discount was given to the respondent at the time of purchase as assured by the appellant no. 1 and it was agreed on the part of the respondent. But Ld. D.C.D.R.F has overlooked this discrepancy and difference the sale price between the Tata Motors and the sale invoice in the name of complainant. So, apparently the judgement is defective, erroneous and liable to be set aside and a complete adjudication requires to be done on the part of the Ld. Forum again and for that reason, the case should be remanded back to the Ld. Forum for a fresh adjudication after hearing the arguments and a verification of documents. Ld. Advocate of the respondent in terms of his arguments mentioned that as per loan agreement the Bussan Auto Finance India Pvt. Ltd. has sanctioned the loan in favour of the respondent/complainant and the loan amount was credited to the account of appellant no. 2 as the original owner of the vehicle. So, penalization to the appellant no. 1 exclusively in regard to the refund of price of the bike is not acceptable. Therefore, the respondent has no objection if the case is remanded back to the Ld. Forum for a fresh adjudication.
Considering all aspect, this Commission thinks it fit and proper to let the matter be remanded back to the Ld. Forum, Jalpaiguri for a fresh adjudication and to deliver a fresh judgement after hearing the argument of both sides and after consulting the documents which has relied upon by the parties to this case before this Commission at the time of hearing.
Thus, the appeal is hereby disposed of accordingly.
Hence it is ordered: -
The appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without imposing any cost. The final order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri in respect of CC/58/2017 dated 25/04/2018 is hereby set aside. Ld. Forum is requested to hear the instant consumer dispute again without recording any further evidence and the forum shall have to adjudicate the dispute on hearing arguments, consultation with the documents which was produced before the forum earlier at the time of adjudication and also the documents which has relied upon by the parties to this case during the hearing of appeal. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost. The copy of the order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri through e-mail.
