In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.404/2010.
1) Shri Sunil Kumar Manot,
BF-242, Salt Lake City, Sector-I, Kolkata-64. -------------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Tata Motors Ltd.
Apeejay House, 5th Floor, Block-A,
15, Park Street, Kolkata-16, P.S. Park Street.
2) M/s K.B. Motors (P) Ltd.,
63C, Anusuya, Ballygunge Circular Road,
Kolkata-19, P.S. Ballygunge. ------------ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 26 Dated 26-09-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that o.p. no.1 is the manufacturer, seller and/or dealer of motor cars of various models inclusive a car named as Indica Vista Safire Terra and carries on business from premises no.’Apeejay House’, 5th Floor, 15 Park Street, Kolkata-16. O.p. no.2 is the agent of o.p. no.1 and is the dealer and and/or distributor of the said car on behalf of o.p. no.1.
On or about Nov.2009 o.p. no.1 made a publication in a newspaper being an advertisement of the car to the general public that the customers of the said car would get exciting benefit of upto Rs.27,000/- which includes three year annual maintenance charges + loyalty bonus of Rs.5000/- and insurance benefits if a purchase was made of the said car from the dealers/distributors as enlisted by o.p. no.1 in the said advertisement.
Being interested by the representations made through the said publication and/or advertisement in the newspapers the complainant approached the o.p. no.2 for purchase of the said car and availing of the benefits as advertised in the said publication to the tune of Rs.27,000/-. O.ps. represented to the complainant that the complainant would be entitled to the benefit of Rs.27,000/-.
Complainants states that upon the delivery being made of the said ca along with the regn. certificate, insurance certificate, tax, token etc. the complainant found that the complainant was not given the full benefit offer of Rs.27,000/- as had been advertised by o.ps. in the publication and the representations made by o.p. no.2. The complainant found that the complaint was given a total benefit of Rs.22,785/- in place and stead of Rs.27,000/-.
Complainant immediately thereafter by a letter/E-mail dt.12.3.10 drew the attention of o.ps. that the complainant has been deprived of the benefits of Rs.4215/- as because he had received the benefit of Rs.22785/- in place and stead of Rs.27,000/- as represented by o.ps.
Complainant states that o.p. no.1 acknowledged the receipt of E-mail dt.12.3.10 and regretted the inconvenience cause to the complainant. O.p. no.1 further stated that the matter has been taken up immediately and the needful will be done at the earliest.
Complainant thereafter through his ld. advocate demand notice from o.ps. by a letter dt.9.7.10 but justice has been denied to the complainant. The letter dt.9.7.10 had been received by o.p. no.1 on 15.7.10 and o.p. no.2 on 14.7.10. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that actually complainant did not have to sustain any loss at all for all practical purpose and we are constrained to hold that complainant is not at all entitled to relief. That apart, ICICI Lombard has not been impleaded as a party in this case and as such, the instant case also suffers from non joinder of party. Therefore, the complaint fails.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost.
