IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/52/2016.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
05.04.16 18.04.16 20.03.19.
Complainant: Sujit Singha
S/O- Late Amarendranath Singha,
Vill- Manganpara, PO- Rampara,
PS- Rejinagar,
Pin- 742189.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Sunil Agarwala, Prop. Of S.N. Motors
Vill- Mankara Sargachhi,
PO- Sargachhi, PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742134.
2. Himojyoti Bhowmick
Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.
Berhampore Branch,
Vill- Jalangi Road, Kotbeltala,
Panchanantala,
Pin- 742101.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Madan Mohan Datta.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Sri. Debraj Mukherjee.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2 : Sri. Prabir Kr. Banerjee.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Sujit Singha (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Sunil Agarwala, Proprietor of S.N. Motors and another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant purchased a Mahindra Maxxomo Mini Van VX White BS-3 bearing engine No. MCE6B11402 Chasis No. MAIFC2MCRE6B38055 on 21.04.14 from the OP No.1 by taking financial assistance from the OP No.2. The Complainant paid Rs.1,15,500/- in cash at the time of delivery of the vehicle and the OP No.1 assured to give him certificate of registration but the OP No.1 did not supply any certificate of registration to the Complainant in spite of repeated reminders. Lastly, on 20.02.16, the Complainant moved to the OP No.1 to get certificate of registration but of no result. The Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP No.1 either to give certificate of registration to the Complainant immediately or to return the purchase value of the vehicle along with interest and other expanses with regard to purchase of the vehicle and for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for unnecessary harassment, professional loss etc.
The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version on 18.07.17, contending that the case is not maintainable. The OP No.1 denied that the OP No.1 assured the Complainant to give certificate of registration. It is the specific case of the OP No.1 that on the date of purchase, the Complainant was given an option to register the vehicle either by his own or through the OP No.1 and the Complainant opted to register his vehicle by his own for which the OP No.1 deducted the cost of registration of Rs.35,000/- from the bill. The documents annexed to the petition are not the proper documents. The OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The OP No.2 is the financer of the vehicle who contested the case by filing written version on 24.01.14, contending that the OP No.2 gave private financial assistance to the Complainant to the tune of Rs.3,10,000/- in terms of agreement dated 30.04.14 but the Complainant is a habitual defaulter in payment of EMI. He failed to repay sixteen installments up to 11.01.17. It is also the case of the OP No.2 that OP No.2 has already initiated arbitration proceedings as per terms of the loan agreement against the Complainant which is pending before the Ld. Arbitrator. The OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1, as alleged?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OPs for consideration.
The OPs have not taken part in hearing of argument.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as he hired services of the OPs for consideration.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer of the OP NO.1 as he purchased the vehicle from the OP No.1 on payment of consideration. It is argued that the OP No.1 had delivered him only vehicle order taking form and insurance policy at the time of delivery of the vehicle. He argues that the Complainant paid Rs. 1,15,500/- in cash and the OP No.2 allowed him a loan of Rs.3,10,000/-. It is contended that the OP No.1 received Rs.4,25,500/- from the Complainant and the OP No.2 for purchase of the vehicle. He argues that the registration cost was Rs.35,000/- as per transaction regularization form issued by the OP No.1 and insurance charge was Rs.14,172/-. It is contended that the OP No.1 told the Complainant that insurance fee was free and he would have to pay registration charge of Rs.35,000/-. He urges that the Complainant arranged for Rs.1,15,500/- by cash and Rs.3,10,000/- through loan as per requirement of the O.P. No.1 but the OP No.1 did not give the Complainant registration certificate in spite of repeated request.
It is submitted that the OP No.1 may be directed either to give the Complainant registration certificate within a short period or to refund Rs.4,25,500/- for deficiency in service and harrasment.
None on behalf of the OPs take part in hearing of argument.
The OP No.2 filed written argument but the OP No.1 has not even filed written argument. The Complainant has filed written argument. We have gone through written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant, written argumt filed by the Complainant and the O.P. No. 2 and xerox copies of documents filed by the complainant.
Admittedly, the Complainant purchased a vehicle bearing engine No. MCF6B11402 from the OP No.1 by taking financial loan of Rs.3,10,000/- from the OP No.2. It is apparent from the transaction regularisation form and vehicle order taking form that the cost of vehicle was Rs.3,42,563/-, registration cost was Rs.35,000/-, insurance cost Rs.14,172/-, discount Rs.5,000/-, marketing cost Rs.3,000/- total Rs.4,39,735/- and out of the said amount, the Complainant paid Rs.1,15,500/-and loan amount received from OP No.2 was Rs.3,10,000/-. Therefore, the OP No.1 received Rs.4,25,500/- out of Rs.4,39,735/-. The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has asserted that the OP No.1 told the complainant that the insurance premium for the first year would be free and it is the version of the OP No.1 that the OP No.1 deducted the cost of registration from the bill. If the version of OP No.1 is taken as true, the Complainant would have to pay Rs.4,04,735/- but the Complainant paid Rs.1,15,000/- and loan amount was Rs.3,10,000/-. So, the Complainant paid Rs.4,25,500/- in place of Rs.4,04,735/-. Therefore, the statement of the O.P. No. 1 regarding deduction of cost of registration from the bill has no basis. But if the version of the Complainant is taken for consideration, we find valid substance as the Complainant paid Rs.4,25,500/- by deducting the amount of insurance. The OP No.1 has stated in his written version that the documents filed by the Complainant are false. The documents regarding transaction regularisation form and vehicle order taking form are issued by the OP No.1. The OP No.1 has not filed any document to ascertain that he deducted the amount of registration cost from the bill.
On a careful consideration we find valid substance in the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that the OP No.1 did not take steps for registration of the vehicle in spite of receiving the registration charges from the Complainant. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the OP No.1 has deficiency in service. The Complainant has prayed for refund of the purchase value of the vehicle. The vehicle was hypothecated to the OP No.2 and according to the version of the OP No.2 arbitration proceeding is pending for non-payment of instalments as per terms of loan agreement. Therefore, we find no reason to give any direction to the OP No.1 to refund the value of the vehicle to the Complainant. The Complainant has not filed application for registration of his vehicle by filing form No. 20,21 and 34 before the registering authority. It is not understood why the Complainant waited for a period of two years for getting registration certificate.
We find that the Complainant has not prayed for relief against the OP No.2.
In our considered opinion, the OP No.1 may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-to the Complainant for deficiency in service , mental harassment and financial loss.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 05.04.16 and admitted on 18.04.16. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds in part.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No.CC/52/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.1 with cost of Rs.5,000/- and dismissed against the OP No.2 without cost.
The OP No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-to the Complainant for deficiency in service, mental harassment and financial loss by sixty days from the date of this order.
The OP No.1 is also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,ooo/-to the Complainant by sixty days from the date of this order. In case of non compliance of the order by sixty days from the date of this order , the O.p. No. 1 shall have to pay interest @8% p.a. on 50,500/- to the Complainant till realization.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand/by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
