DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 07/2020
Date of Filing:- Date of Admission:- Date of Disposal:-
27.01.2020 10.02.2020 28.08.2023
Complainant/s :- | - SRI MRINAL MONDAL, S/o Sri Kali Pada Mondal
- Sri Kali Pada Mondal, S/o Lt. Sri Jibon Krishna Mondal, Both of Duttapukur, Bayamsamiti P.O. & P.S. – Duttapukur, Dist. – North 24 Parganas, Pin – 743248.
=Vs.= |
Opposite Parties/s :- | SRI SUBRATA ADHIKARI Proprietor of Riya Car World, S/o Sri Sukumar Adhikari of Duttapukur, Shibalaya, near Golokdar Kathgola, P.O. – Adi Kashimpur, P.S. – Duttapukur, Dist – North 24 Parganas, Pin – 743248, and also residing at Raghab kati, Uttarpara, P.O. – Sarapul, P.S. – Swarupnagar, Dist – North 24 Parganas, Pin - 743286 |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Monisha Shaw……………Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu………………. Member.
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
The Complainant filed this Complaint u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief fact of the case is complainant no. 2 is the father of the complainant no. 1. Complainant no. 2 purchased a car being No. WB06D0372, Model – SANTRO GLS F/L BS III, COMPANY – HYUNDA, ENGINE NO. G4HGAM984435, CHASSIS NO. MALAA51HLAM522310B in the name of complainant no. 1 for gift his son i.e. complainant no. 1 from the old car seller named Riya Car World (proprietor’s name – Subrata Adhikary) on 23.12.2018 for a consideration value of Rs. 1,35,000/-. The O.P. issued money receipt for sold the said car to the Complainant. Complainant paid the full consideration amount to the O.P. and Opposite party promised to the complainants that he will arrange and handed over all original papers of said car including two copies of self attested Voter Card, Aadhaar and PAN Card of the owners, two copies of passport size photo of the owner and Form 28, 29 and 30 of Motor Vehicles Act with the signature of the owner, sale deed, and money receipt of the owner within one week. The O.P. also invested a third party insurance by his own choice agent and the complainants also paid Rs. 3,437/-. After lapse of one week, complainants went to the shop of the O.P. for collecting said papers but the O.P. wants two months time with different lame excuse. That after stipulated period, the complainants again went to the shop of the O.P. for collect the said papers but the O.P. refused to hand over the original papers to the complainants. It is also mentioned that from the date of purchase, the complainants could not run the said vehicle in the road as all the original papers are within the custody of the O.P. The said papers are also required for transfer the owner’s name for run the car as per Law. Finding no other alternative, complainant no. 2 went to the former owner’s house at 59B, Palm Avenue, Karaya, Kolkata – 700019 and it was informed by the previous owner’s parents that the former owner namely Para De is out of country who makes the signature on Form – 29 and 30 of Motor Vehicles Act. The complainants also stated that on 14.11.2019 at about 12:00 P.M. complainants went to the O.P.’s workshop for said purpose and O.P. threatened the petitioner such a way
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 07/2020
that either – (i) make power of attorney by O.P. by consideration of Rs. 4,000/-, or (ii) payment of Rs. 25,000/- to the O.P. for transfer the ownership for said car without any document, or sell the car to the O.P. for a consideration of Rs. 70,000/-. The complainants did not agree by the said illegal proposal of O.P.. Thereafter, O.P. threatened the complainants and use filthy languages to the complainants and also assault and hackle the petitioners with the help of some unknown people. The said car shall be used for the personal daily travelling purpose and for the use of emergency purpose of the family of Complainants. But the complainants would not use the car for said reasons. Compelling circumstances, the complainants filed this case before the Commission. After filing this case complainants sent notices through DCDRC, Barasat but the O.P. did not feel any urge to appear before this Commission. The O.P. did not appear before this Commission even after receiving the notice. The case is within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence, this Commission has ample power to try this case.
Following issued were framed for the purpose of decision:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs in this case.
Reason for Judgment:-
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and character of this case all the prints are interlinked with each other and as well as all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and conveyance.
On perusal of materials along with the supporting affidavit relied to documents available in the case record as well as hearing of argument made by the Ld. Advocate for Complainants and considering all documents, it is revealed that complainants paid Rs. 1,45,000/- to the O.Ps. for purchase a car and O.P. issued the bill for receiving the money. Here, O.P. is the old car seller.
As per 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the definition of the consumer provides that “consumer means any person who buys any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promises, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose” and also provides the definition of the consumer in Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainants paid said consideration amount for purchase the said vehicle for the purpose of gift to his son as such complainants are the consumer and O.P. is the service provider. It is the duty of the O.P. to provide all papers and documents for the purpose of registration in the name of the complainants. But the O.P. did not provide the papers and documents to the complainants reason best known to him. For non supply of the said papers and documents and consent of earlier owners, complainants could not move his car on road. The activities of the O.P. will be treated as unfair trade practice as per Consumer Protection Act and deficiency of service also. At the time of selling of the said vehicle, it was assured to the purchaser that the seller shall provide all the documents to the purchaser. Any fault inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by under any law for time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service amounts to deficiency of service. It is submitted by the Ld. Advocate that in this case, the car is being totally transformated into a garbage due to not run and it has no condition to run or drive, it is a huge loss of the complainants therefore in such inconvenience it is absolutely in favour of the complainants and also the
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No. 07/2020
O.P. is directed to return the said vehicle and refund the money along with adequate compensation and interest which the complainants suffered as irreparable loss. The Ld. Advocate for Complainants submits and written in B.N.A that it is required to refund the money with interest by taking back the car and compensation and litigation cost.
We are in view that complainants are the consumers as the Complainant No. 2 paid the consideration money of the car and O.P. is service provider. Complainants paid the full consideration money for purchasing the said car as such they fulfilled their part as such the Complainants are consumer as per Consumer Protection Act but the O.P. did not provide the papers and documents and made unfair trade practice which will be treated as deficiency of service. Therefore O.Ps are liable to fulfil his deficiency of service. Complainants proves their case as such they are entitled to get relief as prayed for and as prayed at the time of argument. The O.P sold the second hand vehicle does not mean that other assurance made in the agreement were not to be complied by the Opposite Party. When the car sold to the Complainant by issuing cash memo for sale it from that time he is liable to provide all papers to the Complainants. The O.P is duty bound to hand over all papers to the Complainants. In the instant case O.P did not controvert the allegations made by the Complainants, so the Complainants proves their case.
Hence,
it is ordered,
That the case being no. CC/07/2020 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.P.
It is hereby directed the O.P. to hand over the original documents and required papers of said vehicle being No. WB06D0372, Model – SANTRO GLS F/L BS III, COMPANY – HYUNDA, ENGINE NO. G4HGAM984435, CHASSIS NO. MALAA51HLAM522310B with compensation and litigation charge of Rs. 20,000/- within two (02) months from the date of delivery of this judgment. Alternatively, by taking return of the said car and refund the entire consideration amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- with 6% interest from the date of receipt of the said consideration money till recovery with compensation and litigation charge of Rs. 30,000/- within two (02) months from the date of delivery of this judgment.
Failing which the Complainant has liberty to file execution case as per Law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
Member
Member President
