West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/43/2012

Dr. Golok Behari Nando - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Keshav Hyunda, Roopnarayanpur - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.43/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 31/08/2012                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

 

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S. Chakraborty,Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. C. Sinha, Advocate.

            Dr. Golok Behari Nando S/o-Lt. Gangadhar Nando, Professor and Head Rubber

            Technology Centre, IIT, Kharagpur, P.O.-Kharagpur, P.S.-Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim

            Medinipur.………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Manager, Keshav  Hyunda, Roopnarayanpur, NH-6, Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The Executive Director Regional Office, Hyundai Motor India, Ltd., Mira Tower, DN-27, 7^th floor, Sector-V,S altsale City, Kolkata-700091
3.  The Manager, Hyundai Motor India, Ltd. Np.54, Developed Plot, Hiru V Ka Industrial Estate, Ekkadutharngal Guindy, Chennai-32………………Ops.

                  The complainant complained in this case that he booked a new Santro  GLS car of Hyundai Company on  20/08/2012 in view of the promotion offer given by the company.  The complainant made full payment towards the cost of the car on road as per invoice given by the company and the car was delivered to the complainant on 23/9/2012 with temporary registration number.  But the company did not hand over the original blue book of the registration of vehicle, road tax for which the complainant paid Rs.29,000/- and Rs.11,620/- respectively, totaling          Rs.40,620/-.  On 30/9/2011 the complainant visited the show room of the Op No.1 to collect the  necessary document of the car  but one Mr. Bajoria, the Managing Director of the company refused to hand over the papers to the complainant  and he further demanded Rs.4,700/-.  According to the complainant, he has been harassed for the last 5 months.  The vehicle could not ply for want of necessary documents and by this time the value of the vehicle has been depreciated.  Hence the complainant prayed for a direction upon the Op NO.1 to handover the

Contd…………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

document relating to the car and also claimed compensation of Rs.2 lakhs from the Op No.1.

               The Op No.1 contested the case by filing W/O in which it is found to be admitted that the complainant purchased the car from the Op No.1 and that the Op No.1 has hold back the document relating to the car to the complainant and demanded farther amount of Rs.4,675/-.  The Op Nos. 2 &3 contested the case by filing a joint W/O.  The specific contention of these Ops is that the Op No.1 sold the car to the complainant.  The Op No.1 is dealer of the Op Nos.2&3 who are the manufacturers of Hyundai car.  These Ops also contended they had no transaction or contract directly with the complainant and hence they prayed for dismissal of this case as against to them.

                  It is to be considered by us as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as claimed.

                                                     Decisions with Reasons

 

                  It appears from the pleadings of the parties and the documents on record that the admitted position is that the complainant purchased a Santro car from the Op No.1 who is a dealer under the op Nos.2&3.  It also found that all transactions have been made between the complainant and the Op No.1. The relief claimed in this case is also only against the Op No.1.  So, we find that the Op Nos.2&3 have no liability as regards the transaction made by the complainant with the Op No.1.

                The Op Nos.2 &3 were present on the date of hearing and they contested the case.  The Op No.1, although filed W/O but did not appear on the date of hearing and as such the case was heard ex parte against him.  That the complainant purchased the car by making payment of the cost of the car, the registration fee, road tax and other charges, would be evident from the tax invoice/cash memo issued by the Op No.1.  In that document we find that nothing was due from the complainant and the complainant made full payment.  The car was also delivered to him but the necessary documents i.e. registration certificate, road tax, insurance policy certificate and other documents were held up by the Op No.1.  This was certainly unfair trade practice on the part of the Op No 1. He delivered the car withholding the necessary documents making it impossible to ply the car.  The complainant has also contended that from the date of delivery of the car, the same is lying idle without plying for want of the necessary documents.  The Op No.1 in his W/O also admitted about withholding of necessary documents of the car.  Such act of the

 

                                                                                                                                                                           Contd…………..P/3

 

   - ( 3 ) -

Op No.1 is beyond tolerance. Delivery of the car without document does not make any sense especially when the complainant paid the every charges.  Such unscrupulous act on the part of the Op NO.1 definitely caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant for which the Op No.1 should be saddled with punitive cost which is provided under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.     

                              Hence it is

                                                Ordered

                                                                   that the case succeeds  ex parte against the Op No.1 and the same be dismissed on contest against the Op Nos.2&3.  The Op No.1 is hereby directed to handover the registration certificate, tax token, road tax certificate, insurance policy certificate and other necessary document in respect of the car which was sold to the complainant, within 21 days from this date.  The Op No.1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50, 000/- to the complainant for the agony and harassment caused to the complainant.  Such compensation is also to be paid within 21 days from this date in default the amount shall carry penal interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till realization of the entire amount.

                     Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.  

Dic. & Corrected by me

                                             I agree                     I agree                      

             Sd/-                            Sd/-                          Sd/-                                 Sd/-                                                

(Mr. K. S. Samajder)     (Mrs. Debi Sengupta) (Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay)    (Mr. K. S. Samajder)   

         President                     Member                   Member                          President

                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.