DATE OF FILING : 30-10-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 05-12-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-05-2014.
Tarak Nath Saha,
son of Sri Shambhu Nath Saha,
residing at 6/36, Kshi Mondal Lane, P.O. Belur Math,
P.S. Belur, District –Howrah,
PIN – 711202.------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. T.N. Auto,
having its go-down and office
at Bagpara, Kona,
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711114.
2. The Manager,
Vedant Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
138, G.T. Road ( South ),
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711102.
3. The Director,
Bazaz Auto Ltd.,
Akurdi, Pune,
PIN – 411035.
4. The Manager,
Family Credit Ltd.,
having its office at Technopolis 7th Floor,
Wing - A, Sector V, Salt Lake, Bidhannagar,
Kolkata – 700091.------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. Complainant, Tarak Nath Saha, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. nos. 1 to 3 to replace the vehicle in question by a new one or to refund the total monetary value of it being 72,600/-, to pay a total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for causing physical and mental harassment along with a litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- and a direction to be given upon o.p. no. 4 not to snatch the vehicle in question from the complainant, along with other orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant bought one new motor cycle of Bazaz make being model no. Pulsar 150CC bike from o.p. no. 1 in exchange of his old two wheeler Discover Bike. For this purpose he paid in cash Rs. 7,000/- ( Rs. 300 + Rs. 6,700) on 26-11-2011 & 30-11-2011 vide Annexure P1 & P2 and o.p. no. 1 assessed his old bike at Rs. 26,000/-. Accordingly, o.p. no. 1 adjusted a total amount of Rs. 33,000/- ( Rs. 300 + Rs. 6,700 + Rs. 26,000) with the consideration price of the new bike, being Rs. 72,600/- and supplied all necessary papers like, insurance, registration book etc. vide Annexure P3. The rest amount of Rs. 39,600/- was financed by o.p. no. 4 which was agreed to be paid by the complainant monthly through installment @ Rs. 2,600/- for 24 months and the vehicle was delivered on 01-12-2011. But immediately on 11-12-2011, complainant, while plying the bike, found a noise was coming out of chain cover and engine was becoming very hot also there was no charge in the battery. And suddenly, the chain was broken into pieces and he had to repair the same from a local service centre. Complainant paid Rs. 125/- vide Annexure money receipt dated 11-12-2011 Annexure P4, to the mechanic and on his request, the said mechanic told him that engine of the vehicle is an old one. Many spare parts were having rust and the battery lost its charging power. So, according to the complainant, the vehicle is a second hand vehicle which o.p. no. 1 sold as a new one. Immediately complainant contacted o.p. no. 1 and said all these defects and o.p. no. 1 advised him to contact o.p. no. 2. Complainant contacted o.p. no. 2 and o.p. no. 2 asked him to come after few days and complainant went after few days. O.p. no. 2 changed the mobile on 06-01-2012 but they did not care to cure the real problems of the bike. Complainant repeatedly requested o.p. no. 2 to cure the actual problems of the bike and he was asked to come after few days. And when complainant with all hope went to o.p. no. 2 on 30-01-2012, o.p. no. 2 demanded changes for the replacement of spare parts, engine, battery. But complainant refused to pay the same and contacted o.p. no. 1 and made the same request to o.p. no. 1. But o.p. no. 1 directly refused to change the spare parts or replace the bike. Complainant made a G.D. Entry with Bally P.S. on 30-01-2012 having no. 2463 vide P5 Annexure. And since then the bike is lying idle in the house of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant served a lawyer’s notice to o.ps. with the same request vide letter dated 07-02-2012. After receiving the said notice, o.p. no. 2 asked the complainant to contact them on 17-02-2012 and complainant went to o.p. no. 2 but they did not do any thing. Moreover, o.p. no. 2 served one letter to complainant on 24-02-2012 stating that complainant did not turn up on 17-02-2012 vide letter dated 24-02-2012. And immediately when complainant realized that o.p. nos. 1 to 3 will not change the spare parts at free of cost or replace the vehicle in question, he stopped the payment of monthly installments to o.p. no. 4. But complainant is always ready and willing to pay the amount as soon as o.p. nos. 1 to 3 redress his grievance. O.p. no. 4 is always threatening him and also has instituted a complain case against the complainant. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayers.
3. All the o.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, the case was heard on contest.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through written version filed by o.p. nos. 1 to 3 along with annexures and noted their contents. It is the specific plea of o.p. nos. 1 to 3 that only to avoid the payment of huge balance loan amount, complainant has filed this petition and he has not come with clean hands. And the vehicle was purchased in the year 2011 and after extensive and continuous use of the said vehicle, only in the fag end of warranty period, complainant has raised the problems only to get free check-up and service from o.ps. for some more years. Further it is stated by o.ps. including o.p. no. 4 that in ‘owner’s manual’ it is specifically written that whenever there is a problem in the vehicle, it has to be serviced and repaired by the authorized service centre But on 11-12-2011, complainant repaired the broken chain by a local mechanic for which he has annexed the money receipt dated 11-12-2011 for an amount of Rs. 125/- only, Annexure P4. And as per Annexure dated 13-02-2012, a letter sent by o.p. nos. 2 & 3 to the complainant, it is evident that on 06-01-2012, when the vehicle was taken to o.p. nos. 2 & 3, for regular servicing, the vehicle already ran for 535 km. And o.p. nos. 2 & 3 provided all possible services and complainant was satisfied. Further on that day, o.p. nos. 2 & 3 suggested him to change mobile in lieu of a small amount, but complainant refund to do that. And complainant sent lawyer’s notice on 07-02-2012 claiming that the vehicle in question is a second–hand one and o.ps. should change the vehicle or return the entire purchase price. Here, we take a pose, we have compared the Annexure no. 16 which is the copy of insurance policy document in which insurance company has decided the ‘Vehicle IDV’ as Rs. 58,000/- on which they charge the premium. And never, an insurance company shows the IDV of a vehicle more than its actual value, Because in any case of claim, insurance company has to pay this IDV. Now, we turn to Annexure no. 12 which is the tax invoice given by o.p. no. 1 in which price of the motor cycle is Rs. 58,315/-. So, from this comparison, it can be said that the vehicle is a new one otherwise, insurance company would have mentioned in their Annexure that the vehicle is a secondhand one. And after 06-01-2012, although complainant had gone to o.ps. for repair or check up but what kind of problem the vehicle had, he did not mention. He has also not annexed any ‘expert report’ and did not even pray for sending the vehicle for any expert evidence. From the entire complaint, we fail to understand that what problem actually the vehicle has. Even the allegation of the complainant, that on 11-12-2011, the chain of the vehicle was ‘ broken into pieces’ while running in the locality, is also not tenable as it required only Rs. 125/- for repair. Even after receiving lawyer’s notice from the complainant, o.p. nos. 2 & 3 sent a letter on 13-02-2012 to take his vehicle to their service centre on 17-02-2012. And as the complainant did not turn up, again on 24-02-2014, o.p. nos. 2 & 3 sent another letter to the complainant. So, the complainant has failed to establish his case. Mere lodging a diary with the police does not help the complainant to get any relief from this Forum. No defect of the vehicle could be found from the available documents on records. O.ps. also rendered the post sale service to the complainant. So, no deficiency could be proved against o.ps. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 379 of 2013 ( HDF 379 of 2013) be dismissed contest against all the o.ps.
However, o.p. nos. 1 to 3 are directed to render further service as and when the vehicle is brought to them on payment of requisite fees.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
