IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. 18/S/2018.                     DATE OF FILING: 28^th Feb, 2018.

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI SUBHABRATA CHAUDHURI,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SRI TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN &

  SMT. MALLIKA SAMADDER .

COMPLAINANT             : Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai,

 S/O- Late Bal Bahadur Rai,

 Village- Stalin Nagar, P.O & P.S- Bagdogra,

 Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin.- 734014.

O.Ps.              1.                       : The Authority,

  Auto Land, Pre-owned Car Dealer,

  B8 Basement, PBR Tower, DOC Bose More,

  Sevoke Road, Siliguri, Pin.- 734008.

                                    2.                     : The Authority, Sky Wheels Pvt. Ltd.,

  At plot No. 312/P, Paribahan Nagar,

  Matigara, Pin.- 734010.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Sahadev Ghosh & Sumit Ghosh, Advocate.

   FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Sri Subhabrata Chaudhuri, Ld. President.                            Date: 07.06.19.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a vehicle ‘Renault Duster’ being no. WB-70D-6233 from OP No.1 who is a pre-owned (2^nd hand) Car Dealer and OP No.2 is the only service center of Renault India Pvt. Ltd. at Siliguri under the name and style Sky Wheels Pvt. Ltd.  At the time of purchase of said vehicle on 05.09.2017 the Tax-Invoice showed that the vehicle mile meter was not in working condition but OP No.2 stated to the complainant that it is not a serious matter which would be fixed at the time of 1st servicing of the vehicle.    At the time of purchase complainant arranged Rs. 3,00,000/- and not the full amount of the car value which was Rs. 6,75,000/- and at this the OP No.1 arranged for a loan of Rs. 3,75,000/- in favour of the complainant.  The mile meter of the said vehicle was not in working condition and both the OPs stated the complainant that prior to purchase the vehicle had run only for 36000 kms.  At the time of servicing of the above said vehicle on 18.11.2017 the mile meter of the vehicle made and repaired in working condition by OP No.2 and the complainant came to know that the vehicle had

Condt…P/2

-:2:-

already run for 142897 kms. It is alleged in the petition of complaint that OP No.1 in connivance with OP No.2 cheated the complainant and thereafter on 18.12.2017 complainant sent legal notice to both the OPs.  The partner of OP No.1, Sri Ankit Agarwal thereafter issued a cheque of Rs. 50000/- dtd. 24.01.2018 to the complainant saying that OP No.1 would repay the entire amount through installments but the said cheque got bounced on 31.01.2018, hence, this case filed by the complainant seeking an award of total Rs. 10,00,000/- from the OPs.  In Paragraph No.-15 of the petition of complaint it is stated that cause of action of this case arose of 05.09.2017 when the complainant received the pre-owned Renault Duster Car in question.  In this case the complainant filed some documents which are as follows:-

1. One copy in original of the purchase letter/delivery letter containing that the complainant had purchased a vehicle/Renault Duster being No. WB-70-D-6233 from the OP No. (1)  on 05.09.2017 for an amount of Rs. 6,75,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand) only, marked as Annexure-A.
2. One copy of “Tax-invoice” of the aforesaid vehicle, dtd. 05.09.2017, mentioning that the mile meter was not in a working condition by the OP No.(2), marked as Annexure-B.
3. One copy of “Tax-Invoice” of the aforesaid vehicle, dtd. 18.11.2017, mentioning that the mile meter showed that the vehicle had already run for 1,42,897 kilometers, marked as Annexure-C.
4. Two copies of “Legal Notices” made to both the OPs along with their postal receipts, dtd. 18.12.2017, marked as Annexure- D and E.
5. One original of the Cheque of Rs. 50,000/-, dtd. 24.01.2018, being no. 0000051 of HDFC Bank at Manoratan Plaza, Sevoke Road, Siliguri Branch, marked as Annexure-F.
6. One Original of deposit slip of the said cheque in State Bank of India, Khaprail Cantt. Braanch, dtd. 29.01.2018, marked as Annexure-G.
7. One original of the return memo report of State Bank of India, Khaprail Cantt. Branch, dtd. 31.01.2018, mentioning funds insufficient, marked as Annexure-H.
8. One Original of reply notice, dtd. 31.01.2018 by the OP No.(2), marked as Annexure –I.

This case has been running ex-parte against OP No.1 by virtue of order No. 5 dtd. 30.05.2018.  The only contesting OP is the OP No.2.  The OP No.2 submitted written version to this case and the affidavit-in-chief of the witness Shri Kuntal Mitra being authorized representative of OP no.2 and ultimately the written

Condt…P/3

-:3:-

argument is also filed from the side of OP No.2.  OP No.2 has filed three documents one is photocopy of pre job slip report dtd. 5.09.2017 secondly photocopy of repair order dealer copy dtd. 05.09.2017 and photocopy of dealer management system/vehicle history.  This is the case of the OP No.2 that this case is defective due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that OP No.2 is not the dealer of the company and i.e., OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of Renault cars and its sales and after sales service and all the transactions were done by the complainant with the OP No.1 and as such it is not possible for the answering OP No.2 to make any comment regarding particulars of the transactions. It is further stated by OP No.2 that the vehicle was first brought to the OP No.2 for servicing and with the set kilometer reading i.e., 38081 kms the opening of a job-card was also not possible because the previous kilometer reading as on 26.05.2017 was 140768 kms and it was not possible to open a job-sheet with a lesser kilometer reading and the solution was to purchase a new mile meter but the complainant was not agreed to spend at that time and was ready to ply with this stopped/damaged mile meter.  It is in the written version that the vehicle in question was not sold by the OP No.2 so it was not possible for the OP No.2 to even know as to who had tampered the mile meter if at all the customer had purchased the same with a meter reading as on or stated 38081 kms.  The complainant in support of his case filed affidavit-in-chief as evidence from his part as well as some documents as mentioned earlier. Written notes on argument has been filed by the complainant in this case.  Under the facts and circumstances of the case we heard oral argument as advanced by both the sides’ Ld. Advocates on record and now, in order to determine the controversy in between the parties amidst the materials on record the following issues are framed:-

1. Is the complainant a consumer as per definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. 1986?
2. Has there been any deficiency in service upon the complainant as alleged from the side of the OPs?
3. Has there been any unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs against the complainant in this case?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief/reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

All the four(4) issues are taken up together for consideration as those are interlinked.

Admittedly the vehicle in question which is Renault Duster being No. WB-70B-6233 was purchased by the complainant on 05.09.2017 from OP No.1 Auto Land, Pre-owned car dealer by

Condt…P/4

-:4:-

paying consideration price of Rs. 6,75,000/- out of which Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by the complainant and the rest amount was on credit.  The signature of the purchaser as well as that of Auto Land Partner has been there on the receipt cum writing dtd.05.09.2017.  It is also admitted by the complainant that the mile meter of the said vehicle was not in working condition and the OPs stated him that vehicle had run only for 36000 kms and believing  them the complainant purchased the said vehicle.

Under the facts and circumstance of the case there is no doubt in it that complainant is a consumer as per section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. 1986.  As regards issue Nos. 2 & 3 where the question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice are related, for consideration of the same we have gone through the papers and documents on record from the document as furnished by the complainant which is of dtd. 18.11.2017 it appears that Kilometers has been mentioned as against the number of the vehicle as 1,42,897 kms which is so counted within two and half months of the purchase of said vehicle right from 05.09.2017.  It is the case of the complainant that on seeing such run of huge kilometers of the vehicle the complainant became astonished and reported the matter to the OPs but no fruitful result came and ultimately in Paragraph-11 of the petition of complaint complainant stated that a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- was issued in favour of the complainant by one of the partners of OP No.1, Ankit Agarwal on 24.01.2018 which also got bounced on 31.01.2018.  But who is that Ankit Agarwal and why he issued that cheque in the name of the complainant for which purpose that cannot not be ascertained simply by going through the cheque itself.  It is not clear as to whether this cheque has any nexus with this case or not.  It appears that the person signed on the document dtd. 05.09.2017 as dealer of OP No.1, Auto Land is one Mr. Jindal.  There is no document to establish that the person who issued the cheque amounting Rs. 50,000/- namely, A. Agarwal had any relation with the above named Mr. Jindal as partner or not.  It is to be borne in mind that not only the seller but also it is the duty of the buyer to purchase some goods on some verification of the same.  At the time of purchase of the vehicle the main point in issue in this case that mile meter(odometer) was actually suppressed by the OP side or not and it was stated that only 36,000 kms was the total run of the vehicle at that time on 05.09.2017 and that was within the knowledge of the complainant also but subsequently the complainant came to know as the run of vehicle was not so lesser but it was 1,42,897 kms.  From the document as produced by OP No.2 which is of dtd. 05.09.2017 the odometer reading shows as 38081 kms but on the same date it appears that odometer kms is mentioned as 141251. Accordingly, the odometer readings from different documents are showing differently.  Here in this case no effort was made from the part of the complainant for appointment of any mechanical expert for ascertainment of the actual

Condt…P/5

-:5:-

kilometers run at the relevant time.  The running of kilometers could be detected by examination and verification of the vehicle itself but now that cannot be justified with mere production of some papers showing kilometers.  The OP No.2 has stated that the concern Sky Wheels Pvt. Ltd. is not the vendor of the vehicle and the matter in dispute here in this case remains in between the complainant and the OP No.1.  Thus under the facts and circumstances of the case after due consideration of the above issues, we are of the view, that the complainant has failed to prove that the OPs have any deficiency in service or any sort of unfair trade practice towards the complainant in respect of the vehicle in question.  Both the issue Nos. 2 & 3 are thus disposed of against the complainant and as a result of that the issue no. 4 is also disposed of against the complainant.  Accordingly, the case of the complainant fails.  Proper fees paid. Hence, it is,

ORDERED,

that the instant Consumer Case No. 18-S-2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against OP No.2 and on ex-parte against OP No.1 and accordingly disposed of without any cost. 

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost at once.