Date of filing: 28.11.2018                                                                 Date of disposal: 01.02.2022

Complainant:             Pobi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., a Company, having its office at Karngapara Road, PO: Durgapur, PS: Cock Oven, Dist: Paschim Bardhaman, PIN – 713 201, represented by its Director Mr. Tapan Kumar Pobi.

-Vs-

Opposite Parties:       SWG CAR WORLD, having its Branch Office at NH-2, G. T. Road, Faridpur, PO: Durgapur, Dist:  Paschim Bardhaman, PIN – 713 213, represented by its Branch Manager.

Present:

Hon’ble President: Mr. Md. Muizzuddeen.

Hon’ble Member: Mr. Sailaranjan Das.

Appeared for the Complainant:     Ld. Advocate, Subrata Ghosh, Debdas Rudra & Rumania Bagchi Ghosh

Appeared for the O.P.:     Ld. Advocate, Puja Kurmi (ex parte).

Order No. 27, Dated: 01.02.2022

Today is fixed for passing final order ex parte. No step is taken by the complainant. There is no bar to pass ex parte order finally. As such this order is being passed ex parte finally as follows:

Pobi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., a Company represented by its Director Mr. Tapan Kumar Pobi has filed this case as complainant against the OP-SWG Car World represented by its Branch Manager on 28.11.2018 under Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a new Maruti Suzuki manufactured car, Model CIAZ-SMART Hybrid ZDI bearing registration No. WB40AD/4803 from Sainath Auto Links Pvt. Ltd. for the personal use of its Director named Tapan Kumar Pobi exclusively and it was insured under New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period 2016-17. On 21.06.2016 when Mr. Tapan Pobi was on his way to Bidhannagar from Sanaka Hospital, suddenly a cow appeared in the middle of the road and the driver of the car to save the cow used the brake and the car skid and fell into a ditch beside the road. As a result, the car was damaged. After the accident, the damaged vehicle had been deputed to the service centre of the OP on 25.06.2016 for repairing. The said car was lying at an idle condition at the service centre of the OP for several days and the complainant on various occasions visited the service centre and requested to do the repairing job as early as possible. The complainant already apprised the OP that due to non-availability of the car he had been suffering huge inconvenience and compelled to hire a vehicle for the personal use of the Director Mr. Tapan Pobi and ultimately he had been suffering huge financial loss regularly. The complainant on several times requested the OP over phone as well as through email to deliver the vehicle after necessary repair to the complainant but the OP did not provide adequate and proper service to the complainant. In the meantime the complainant learnt that due to negligence on the part of the OP in keeping the vehicle in their workshop various electronics and electrical equipment were totally damaged and became non-functioning. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the conduct and service of the OP, the complainant vie letter dated 05.12.2016 asked for replacement of the car by a new one as because electronics and electrical equipment were totally damaged and become non-functioning due to negligence on the part of the OP. Finally, the OP returned the vehicle to the complainant on 13.02.2017, after expiry of a period of seven months from the date of receipt of the said vehicle. After delivery of the said car, the complainant noticed that the car was not completely in road-worthy condition and not fit to ply on road. The complainant also observed that some features relating to electronic and electrical equipments were not working or functioning satisfactorily and he immediately reported the said facts to the workshop Manager of the OP, named Mr. Rajib Chakraborty at the time of taking delivery of the car. But the said Manager of the OP did not take any efforts till date to clear defects which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. For that, the complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment and huge financial loss. The complainant informed the said fact to the OP on 13.04.2017 through email but the OP did not bother to make any response against the said email.

The cause of action arose on and from 13.02.2017 and it was still continuing.

Upon this background the complainant prays for Rs. 2, 25,000=00 as compensation @30,000/- per month for the period of seven and half months and Rs. 1,00,000=00 as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment and lastly Rs. 50,000=00 as litigation cost.

After appearance of long time, he did not file any written version and as such, the case was heard ex parte.

The complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit and in support of his claim, he filed at the time of institution of the case some Xerox copies of documents, which are lying with the case record.

Now we shall have to consider as to how the complainant has proved his case in view of the above such evidence against the OP.

In this case the complainant has adduced evidence by way of affidavit. He corroborated the facts depicted in the complaint. Xerox copy of documents given by the SWG Car World, i.e., the OP shows that the alleged vehicle was given to the OP service centre on 25.06.2016 and it was delivered on 26.07.2016 and it was the service centre attached to the company of the car and the said document clearly shows that approximate insurance amount was settled which is to be paid by the Insurance Company and subsequently it was delivered to the complainant. But no document or no receipt is forthcoming on behalf of the complainant to show that he has paid any consideration money to the OP service centre. Even no receipt has been filed by him to show that Insurance Company paid the amount of loss as insurance claim. Furthermore, we do not find any fact of claim to the Insurance Company or paid the same by the Insurance Company either in the complaint in the evidence on affidavit of the complainant. In the affidavit the complainant stated that after taking delivery of the said car, the complainant noticed that the car was not in roadworthy condition and not fit to ply on road and some photographs relating to electronic equipments were not working or functioning satisfactorily. This fact has not been proved by the complainant with the production of any expert evidence relating to motor vehicle and especially when the complainant is not an expert relating to motor vehicle; his oral evidence cannot be taken into consideration. It is the bounden duty to prove the case by the complainant when especially the case is heard ex parte and according to principle of law in the case of ex parte hearing the Commission or the Court shall have to look into the matter in scrutinize. From this angle of vision it can be said that the complainant did not hire the service by way of payment of consideration money and apart from it the Company of the alleged vehicle and the Insurance Company have not been parties to this case. The case does not come under the purview of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As a result, the case must fail.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that this case be and same is dismissed ex parte but without any cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the Complainant free of cost as per provisions of law.

     Dictated & Corrected by me:                                               (Md. Muizzuddeen)

                                                                                                                 President

            (Md. Muizzuddeen)                                               D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman

                    President

      D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman

                                                                           (Sailananjan Das)                                      

                                                                                    Member                                                                                                              D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman