Orissa

Debagarh

CC/15/2020

Dolagobinda Pradhan, aged about 53 years, S/O- Keshaba Chandra Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief District Vertenary Officer, Deogarh - Opp.Party(s)

17 Dec 2021

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEOGARH

C.C. Case No- 15 /2020

            Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Arati Das, Member.

Dolagobinda Pradhan, aged about 53 years,

S/O- Keshab Chandra Pradhan,

At-Khaparsahi, Ward No-1,P.O/P.S/Dist-Deogarh.                                      .... Complainant.

-Versus-

1. The Chief District Vertena ry Officer, Deogarh.,

           P.O-/P.s/Dist-Deogarh(Orissa).

2. The Director,

           Animal Husbandry & Vertenary Services,  

           Cuttack, Orissa.                                                                                  .... Opposite Parties.

COUNSELS

For the Complainant           :-         Self

For the O.P-1 & 2                 :-         None.

 

DATE OF HEARING : 10.12.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 17.12.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that,  the O.Ps have invited for auction sale of one Mahindra & Mahindra Jeep bearing registration number-OR-05-8518, which was being used by the O.P-1 for official purposes. The Complainant had took part in the auction call in the office of the O.P-1 and tender his candidature for the purpose of the said Jeep on dtd. 22.01.2015 and deposited caution money of Rs.16,500/-.The Complainant became the highest bidder and has purchased the Jeep with a full consideration amount of Rs.66,000/- and paid the balance amount of Rs.49,500/- on dtd. 28.01.2015 after completing all official procedure. On the same day, dtd. 28.01.2015, the O.P-1 handed over the said Jeep to the Complainant along with the R.C Book as per the term and condition.  Thereafter the Complainant observed that the ownership of the said Jeep was still in the name of the O.Ps and it is not transferred to the name of the Complainant and the registration of the said jeep is valid till dtd. 25.11.2013. The Complainant on the same day brought the matter to the notice of the O.P-1 but he assured the Complainant that he will transfer the ownership in the name of the Complainant and do all paper works clear as soon as possible. But the O.Ps did not take any step to transfer the ownership in the name of the Complainant even after lapse of one year. The Complainant met the Registering authority at Cuttack and came to know that there a tax due outstanding against the said Jeep for which the ownership is not transferred to the name of the Complainant. In the month of March-2016 the Complainant met with the O.P-1 and narrated the matter and requested him to find a way to solve the problem but the O.P-1 assured him to solve this with a short time. On dtd. 17.06.2016 the Complainant the wrote a letter to the O.P-2 describing all the facts and requested to take needful steps at his end but even after 6 to 7 months no outcome achieved. Again on dtd. 06.01.2017 and dtd. 11.05.2017, the Complainant met with the O.P-1 to make necessary arrangements for transfer of ownership in to the name of the complainant but no response was made by the O.P-1 and the condition of the said Jeep was being detoriate day by day at the house of the Complainant. Due to non transfer of the ownership of the Jeep the Complainant not be able to ply it on road and kept the same in his garage since the date of delivery from the O.P-1. As the Jeep has acquired some major portion of space in the house of the Complainant, the Complainant decided to shift the same to some other place in the locality. On dtd. 27.05.2019, when the Complainant was shifting the said Jeep from his house, he was trapped in RTO checking and paid Rs.500/- vide challan no OR12787190527090011 at Nilaberenisahi chawk, within Deogarh town.  Though the Complainant had fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the Auction sale as per the notification but the O.Ps did not serve him properly rather neglected the Complainant in various ways for which the Complainant sustained financial loss, mental agony due to deficiency in service caused by the Opp. Party, after several request and approaches.

The O.P-1 & 2 despite of service of notice they did not bother to appear and file written statements to their defense before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose off the case on merit basis considering the Complaint petition filed by the Complainant.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he had purchased the Jeep through Auction Sale from the O.P-1 after fulfillment of all the formalities. It is seen from the Office Order  vide No- 70, Dtd. 22.01.2015  that one Mahindra Jeep bearing Regd No-OR-05-8518 has been sold to the Complainant Sri Dolagobinda Pradhan  being the highest bidder for an auction amount of Rs. 66,000/-. He deposited 25% of the said amount of Rs 16500/- (receipt Sl. no-27, book no-33002) and the rest amount of 75% will be deposited by him  latest on 28.01.2015.  Again on dtd. 28.01.2015 the Complainant has deposited Rs. 49,500/-(75%) with the O.P-1 and the O.P-1 issued an acknowledgement/ receipt vide serial no-28 ,book no-33002. But the O.P-1 did not take steps to transfer the ownership of the Jeep in to the name of the Complainant  for which he facing financial loss and harassment. He is not able to ply the Jeep on the Road due to lack of documents in his name. Recently the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act were passed by the Parliament which has been come into effect from September 1, 2019  for which there is a heavy penalty for driving errors. In this situation it is a matter of high risk for a person to drive any vehicle without valid papers relating the vehicle along with driving license, helmet etc,.  where there  is every chance of  being trapped and to bear  fines.  The matter is well settled in the case of “Sanjay Agrawal vs. Authorized Officer & Others” decided by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Pandri, Raipur (C.G). on 3^rd  May, 2014. It is inferred from the above that the O.P-s has committed deficiency in services U/S-2(11) and Unfair Trade Practice U/S-2 (47)   of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.Hence we order as under :

ORDER.

               The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to deliver the Smart Card and R.C particulars of the said Jeep to the Complainant within 30 days of receiving this order.  Further the O.Ps are jointly and severally   is directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) only as compensation for mental agony of the petitioner and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand ) as litigation expenses to the petitioner  within 30 (Thirty ) days of receipt of this order failing which the O.P is liable to pay penal interest of 9% per annum on the above amounts.

               Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties receiving acknowledgement of the delivery of thereof.

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 17^th day of December, 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

             I      agree,                                        

           

             MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT.

              Dictated and Corrected

              by me.

 

        PRESIDENT.