Girish Chandra Behera filed a consumer case on 13 Sep 2022 against Sweta Patel,Bhoomi Auto Mobiles in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/139/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Nov 2022.
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.
C.C.No.139/2018
Girish Chandra Behera,
S/O:Ananta Charan Behera,
At:Kumbhar Sahi,Agrahat,P.O: Agrahat,
P.S;Choudwar,Dist:Cuttack. ... Complainant.
Vrs.
Through its Proprietor Sweta Patel,
At:Mundamala Chhak,P.S:Choudwar,Dist:Cuttack..
At:Mundamala Chhak,P.S:Choudwar,Dist:Cuttack,
Permanent residing At:Janla,Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda.
S/O:Satyabadi Sahoo,Manager-Cum-Cashier,
Mundamala Chhak,
P.S:Choudwar,Dist:Cuttack.
S/O:Satyabadi Sahoo,
Permanent address of At:Badapali Street,
Godiapada,Nayagarh,
P.S:Nayagarh,Dist:Cuttack. ... Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.
Date of filing: 28.12.2018
Date of Order: 13.09.2022
For the complainant: Mr. Arjan Ku. Jena,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.Ps No.1 & 2: Mr. G.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.Ps no.3 & 4: None.
Sri Debasish Nayak,President
Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a bike Yamaha SZRR bearing Chassis No. ME1RG451AH00 and Engine No.G3J5E0026184 on 30.12.17 for a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the O.P No.1 but due to computer problem he could not get the rented money and in lieu of it he was given one manual delivery receipt. They assured to give the money receipt alongwith computer money receipt, but the O.Ps had not handed over the said document to the complainant or the money receipt inspite of his several requests. The complainant was only given pseudo hopes but when he could not get his documents and money receipt from the O.Ps relating to the purchase of Yamaha bike of him, he had lodged a complaint petition before the IIC,Choudwar Police Station and issued legal notice to the O.Ps and ultimately had filed this case seeking direction to the O.Ps in order to hand over him all the original connecting documents like money receipt, registration certificate, insurance certificate alongwith a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental torture and harassment. He has also claimed his litigation costs and for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.
The complainant has filed the delivery receipt of the Yamaha bike SZRR dt.30.12.17, copy of one estimate as made to the tune of Rs.346/- as regards to servicing of his Yamaha bike SZRR, copies of the application/grievances as made by him to O.Ps. He has also filed copy of the legal notice as sent by him to the O.Ps alongwith copy of FIR addressed to the IIC,Choudwar P.S.
2. On the other hand, out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.Ps no.3 & 4 having not contested this case have been set exparte vide order dt.3.12.19. However, O.Ps no.1 & 2 have contested this case and have filed written version. As per the written version of O.Ps no.1 & 2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable, the complainant had no cause of action to file this case, the complainant had not approached with clean hands, complainant had given some misleading facts and had suppressed material facts. O.Ps no.1 & 2 through their written version have stated that the complainant of this case had never appeared before them for purchasing the vehicle in question but it was the father of the complainant who had visited the showroom of O.P No.1 on 30.12.17 and he was said that the price of the intending bike to be purchased would be of Rs.78,000/- and the father of the complainant wanted it through finance i.e. Muthoot Capital Service but no paper of finance, no cheque was ever given by the father of the complainant to the O.Ps no.1 & 2 but O.P No.3 had illegally handed over the vehicle to the father of the complainant namely Ananta Charan Behera with an assurance to pay the balance amount of Rs.46,000/- towards the said vehicle within a period of two weeks. Thus, the O.P no.3 being an employee of O.Ps no.1 & 2, had fraudulently delivered the vehicle to the father of the complainant after receiving a sum of Rs.32,000/- which is reflected in the manual money receipt behind back of O.Ps no.1 & 2. It is for this, O.Ps no.1 & 2 had filed FIR against O.P No.3 at the Choudwar P.S. Thus, it is the prayer of O.Ps no.1 & 2 through their written version that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
They have also filed copies of documents showing payment of Rs.32,000/- only to have been paid as regards to the vehicle in question an amount of Rs.46,000/- to be lying as due.
3. Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition as well as contents in the written version of the contesting O.Ps no.1 & 2, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.
i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?
ii. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?
Issues no.i & ii.
Issues no.i & ii being the pertinent issues are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.
On perusal of the complaint petition, the written version as filed by the O.Ps no.1 & 2, the copies of the documents relating to the vehicle in question, the FIR as lodged at the Choudwar P.S, it is noticed that infact the O.Ps no.1 & 2 had submitted FIR against their employee O.P No.3, alleging against him about the cheating and fraud do not pay him by delivering the vehicle in question, father of the complainant without receiving the full and final payment. Though the complainant has stated to have lodged FIR at Choudwar P.S against the O.P of this case, there is no document to establish that if the copy of the FIR which he has filed here in this case was duly submitted at the Choudwar P.S. That apart, the complainant has also failed to prove that if infact he had paid the total consideration amount to the O.Ps in order to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Thus, in the absence of such, this Commission holds that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service against the O.Ps and this Commission could get the quintessence of the truth which the complainant had tried to camouflage. Thus, this Commission is of a view that the complainant has not approached with clean hands and that his case cannot be said to be maintainable as filed before this Commission. Accordingly, these two issues go against the complainant.
Issue no.iii.
From the discussions as made above, it can never be said that the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed. Hence it is so ordered;
ORDER
The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps no.1 & 2 and exparte against O.Ps no.3 & 4 and as regards to facts and circumstances of the case without cost.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 13th day of September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
Sri Debasish Nayak
President
Sri Sibananda Mohanty
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.