Hon’ble Mr. Manojit Mandal, President
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The Complainant has stated inter-alia that the O.P, Poddar Car World (P) Ltd. is a reputed businessman and dealer of authorized Maruti Suzuki Car under name and style “Poddar Car World (P) Ltd., Chakchaka, Cooch Behar” within the jurisdiction of this Forum. He borrowed a large sum of amount from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Mahindra Finance, Cooch Behar Branch and on taking money from Mahindra Finance, he purchased one four wheeler 2nd handed Tata Sumo Car amounting to Rs.2,92,600/- from the O.P on 04.10.2016 and the Registration No. of the said Car was WB-77-9433, with a view to maintenance of his business by borrowing, due to his paucity of fund. After purchasing the said vehicle, he had to face a lot of problems for bad condition of the vehicle and he made several contacts with the O.P for requisite documents and discussed about the bad condition of the said vehicle. After discussion, the O.P told him to take back the vehicle at his show room and also promised him to provide a new car in lieu of old vehicle. As per discussion with the O.P, he returned the old vehicle No. WB-77-9433 on 28.08.17 with proper acknowledgement for getting a new Maruti Alto-800 Car in lieu of old vehicle within 15 days from the end of the O.P.
Further case of the Complainant is that he met several times with the O.P, Manager, Poddar Car World (P) Ltd. at his show room for getting the new car as per prior instruction of the O.P but too no effect. Since he purchased the said vehicle being No. WB-77-9433 on taking loan from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Mahindra Finance, he is paying unnecessary interest on principal amount to the financier.
Further case of the Complainant is that he sent a legal notice to the O.P and the O.P received the same on 21.12.18 but too no effect. As a result, he is suffering from paying unnecessary interest on principal amount to the financier. Hence, this case.
Notice upon the O.P was duly served and the O.P did not enter appearance in this case. As such, the case was heard ex-parte against the O.P.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps as alleged?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1, 2 & 3.
All these points are taken up together for consideration.
The Consumer Protection Act defines a consumer as a person who buys any good or hires any service for a consideration. In the absence of any payment or consideration, the consumer does not acquire the right to complain under the law.
To prove the case, the Complainant has filed evidence on affidavit.
It is the case of the Complainant that he purchased one four wheeler 2nd handed Tata Sumo Car amounting to Rs.2,92,600/- from the O.P on 04.10.2016 on going to his Office and show room. The number of the said vehicle was WB-77-9433. He purchased the said vehicle by borrowing money due to his paucity of fund. After purchase of the said vehicle, he had to face a lot of problems for bad condition of the vehicle i.e. the said vehicle was not at all in good condition. At the time of purchase of the said vehicle, the O.P did not provide any documents regarding the said vehicle to the Complainant. From the above evidence of the Complainant, it appears to us that no money receipt was granted to the Complainant and as such, he has not filed any money receipt issued by the O.P. The Complainant has nowhere stated in his evidence that he made a complaint to the local P.S for non-issuing of money receipt regarding the purchase of the said vehicle. He has not produce any paper to show that he demanded money receipt from the O.P. The Complainant has filed Annexure “A” which is the acceptance letter issued by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Mahindra Finance, Cooch Behar. The said letter discloses that there is no whisper in the said document that Rs.2,92,600/- was paid to the O.P towards consideration money. Annexure “B” is a receipt, which discloses that the O.P received the disputed vehicle from the Complainant but there is no whisper in the Annexure “B” that the disputed vehicle was sold to the Complainant by Poddar Car World (P) Ltd. and said Poddar Car World (P) Ltd. received the disputed car from the Complainant for providing a new car in lieu of the disputed car. So, there is a cloud of doubt about the case of complaint. Therefore, it is proved that the Complainant has failed to produce the most important documents required to prove that the Complainant is indeed a consumer – the receipt showing the product or service that he is complaining about, was actually paid for by him.
In view of the peculiar facts of the case, particularly the failure of the Complainant in producing the documentary evidence with regard to purchase of the disputed vehicle being No. WB-77-9433 from the O.P, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that he is a bona-fide consumer in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Then, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this Complainant.
Under these facts and circumstances and on perusal of the evidence and materials on record, we are of the view that the Complainant has failed to prove his case and as such, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
All these points are decided and disposed of against the Complainant and in favour of the O.P.
The complaint case fails to succeed.
Fees are paid correctly.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the Complainant and in favour of the O.P without any cost.
Let a 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 this Final Order/Judgement also available at www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
