Date of Filing: 04/11/2016 Date of Final Order: 24/11/2017
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is an application u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The sum and substance of the Complaint case may be described as follows :-
One Sri Sanjib Chakraborty hereinafter referred as the Complainant, lodged the complaint against the Manager, Brahmachari Auto, Cooch Behar, hereinafter referred as the O.P alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is the version of the Complainant that he purchased one Bajaj Motor Cycle from the O.P on being lured by an advertisement on payment of Rs.51,604/- on 21/10/2012 which included Insurance premium and Registration fees. The vehicle was delivered by the O.P to the Complainant on 21/10/2012. The Complainant went to the showroom of the O.P for obtaining Road Tax clearance , Registration Certificate of the vehicle but of no result. Ultimately, the Complainant sent one legal notice dated 01/08/2016 to the O.P by registered post with A/D and the O.P replied to the notice by requesting the Complainant to collect the documents from the showroom within seven days. The Complainant went to the showroom of the O.P to collect the documents but of no result. The cause of action arose on 21/10/2012 and is still continuing.
Hence, the Complainant has filed this case praying for reliefs.
The OP put his appearance and filed W/V on 23/02/2017 contending that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action. It is the version of the O.P that he collected the Road Tax and Registration Certificate from the Regional Transport Authority on 07/11/2012 and requested the Complainant to collect the documents from the showroom in several times but the Complainant never came to the showroom of the O.P to collect the documents. The O.P is ready to deliver the documents even before the Hon’ble Forum, if so directed. The O.P replied to the legal notice of the Complainant and requested the Complainant to collect the documents within seven days but the Complainant did not respond to the reply. Thus, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.
The O.P prays for dismissal of the case with costs.
On the basis of above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submits that the Complainant purchased a Motor-cycle from the OP on payment of Rs.51,604/- on 21.10.2012 and he has filed this case against the OP for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is urged that the Complainant is a consumer under the OP in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP has submitted nothing on this point.
Having heard the Ld. Agents of both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, we are of the considered view that the Complainant is a consumer under the OP.
Point No.2.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant has submitted that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the address of the OP is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and claimed amount is also within the pecuniary limit of this Forum.
On going through the complaint petition and w/v, we have no hesitation to hold that this Forum has both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submits that the Complainant purchased a Bajaj Motorbike from the OP on payment of Rs.51,604/- on 21.10.2012 which included insurance premium and Registration Fees but the OP has not delivered the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in spite of repeated requests. It is urged that OP received Rs.6,084/- for Registration Fees but the Registration Certificate has not yet been provided in spite of repeated demands. He has further argued that the Complainant was unable to ply the said Motorbike without registration certificate and road tax clearance and it tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. It is urged that on receipt of legal notice from the Complainant, the Ld. Advocate for the OP replied to the said notice by requesting the Complainant to collect the documents from the show room of the OP within 7 days but the Complainant could not receive the documents from the show room of the O.P. in spite of his great efforts. He has prayed for an order so that the Complainant may get all necessary documents from the OP or get refund the price of the Motorbike from the OP. He has also prayed Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP submits that the OP has /had no deficiency in service or illegal trade practice. It is urged that allegations against the OP are baseless as the OP requested the Complainant to collect the documents from the show room but the Complainant did not collect the same, the reasons best know to the Complainant. It is submitted that OP deposited the requisite fees for Road Tax and Registration Certificate in time and collected the same from the RTA, Cooch Behar on 07.11.12. He argues that OP requested the Complainant to collect the documents more than once but the Complainant did not collect the same from the show room of the OP. It is urged that Complainant has filed this case with a view to harass the OP without any reason. He has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Admittedly, the Complainant purchased a Bajaj Motorbike from the OP on 21.10.12 on payment of Rs.51,604/-. Admittedly, the total amount includes Insurance Premium and Registration Fees. Admittedly, the Op received charges for Registration of the vehicle and Road Tax of the vehicle. Admittedly, Registration Certificate and Road Tax document are still in the custody of the OP. Admittedly, the OP received the legal notice of the Complainant dated 01.08.16 and responded to the said notice vide letter dated 09.08.16 and requested the Complainant to collect the documents within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter. It is version of the Complainant that he went to the show room of the OP but the OP did not deliver the documents to him and it is the version of the OP that Complainant did not collect the documents from the show room. The main controversy is whether the OP refused to deliver the Registration Certificate and Road Tax document to the Complainant. It is the version of the OP that both the documents are with his custody. The date of purchase of the Motorbike was on 21.10.12. It is very strange to note that the Motorbike is lying with the Complainant since 21.10.12 without any Registration Certificate and road tax clearance. It is true that the vehicle cannot be road-worthy without Registration Certificate and Road Tax document. The Complainant has failed to produce any document to establish that he went to the OP to collect the documents from 21.10.12 to 31.07.16. The Ld. Agent for the OP has submitted that the OP is ready to deliver the Registration Certificate and Road Tax document if the Complainant comes to the show room of the OP and there is no system to send the said documents to any customer by post/courier service.
Considering the entire materials on record and submission of both sides, it appears that purchased Motorbike is lying with the Complainant since 21.10.12 and the Registration Certificate and Road Tax document are lying with the OP. The OP has responded to the legal notice of the Complainant dated 01.08.16 by requesting the Complainant to collect the documents from the show room by 7 days from the date of receipt of legal notice. We find no ground to believe that Complainant went to the show room of the OP and the OP did not handover the documents to the Complainant specially when no amount is due from the Complainant. The O.P deposited road tax clearance certificate in original before this forum on 23.08.17 after service of the copy of Firisty but the Complainant has not even applied to get the tax clearance certificate.
The O.P. is to get back the Original Road Tax clearance deposited by him within fifteen days and to hand over the same along with registration Certificate to the complainant as and when the Complainant will go to the show room of the O.P. for collection of the documents.
After a careful consideration, we are of the view that Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. In our considered opinion, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
In the result, complaint case fails.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the Complaint Case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the O.P without cost.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
