Date of filing : 03/06/2013 Date of Final Order : 23/06/2014
The simple version of this complainant that enumerated in the complaint is that complainant intended to purchase a Nano car from the UTSAV MOTORS Pvt. Ltd. Cooch Behar and accordingly the complainant went to the office of the O.P.No.1 Cooch Behar on 18.12.2012 for booking the said vehicle and deposited booking amount of Rs.3000/- and the cost of the vehicle was estimated Rs.1,38,042/- including insurance and registration. That on 20.12.2012 the complainant went to the office of the O.P.No.1 for purchasing the said vehicle and had made payment of Rs.1,38,042/- in four occasions, i.e. (i) Rs.3000/- on 18.12.2012 (ii) Rs.1,30,000/- on 19.12.2012, (iii) Rs.1542/- on 20.12.2012 and (iv) Rs3500/- on 29.01.2013. After the payment of desired amount the O.P.No1 delivered the vehicle i.e. TATA NANO STANDARD 273 MPFI PETROL under chasis No.MAT612207CKC22793, Engine No.273 MPFI 04CXYK22917 but did not issue sale certificate to this complainant after getting full payment of Rs.1,38,042/-.That on 30.12.2012 the complainant contacted the O.P.No.1 for getting sale certificate, registration certificate and insurance policy but the O.P.No.1 told this complainant that there is no cause to worry about the matter as early as possible the opposite party provided the said documents in favour of the complainant. So, the complainant did not ply the said vehicle without papers i.e. sale certificate, registration certificate and insurance policy. Thereafter in the month of January and in the month of February, 2013 the complainant contacted several times to the opposite party for obtaining the said papers sale certificate, registration certificate and insurance policy in favour of the said vehicle. That on 20.02.2013 the opposite party was given sale certificate, registration certificate and insurance policy to this complainant (Annexure-C). That on scrutiny it was found that, the sale certificate (Tax Invoice), was issued by the BAJLA MOTORS PVT. LTD, SILIGURI instead of UTSAV MOTORS Pvt. Ltd, Cooch Behar. At the time of purchasing the said vehicle complainant paid RS.1,38,042/- but the opposite party furnished money receipt of Rs.1,27,740/- (Vehicle Price Rs. 1,07,453/-, Insurance Rs.5748/-, Road Tax Rs.14,040/- and complete set Rs.449/-).So, the opposite party has received excess amount of Rs.10,302/- from the complainant. After getting the documents the complainant went to the office of the opposite party i.e. UTSAV MOTORS Pvt. Ltd, Cooch Behar for rectifying the Tax Invoice which was issued by the BAJLA MOTORS PVT LTD, SILIGURI and get back the excess amount of Rs. 10,302/- from the opposite party but the concerned opposite party did not pay any heed towards the complainant. That finding no other alternative the complainant filed a written complain before the opposite party i.e. UTSAV MOTORS Pvt. Ltd, Cooch Behar on 26.02.2013 for redressing of the aforesaid matter but all efforts were in vain. Due to unethical activities of the opposite party this complainant suffered irreparable loss and the complainant did not ply the said vehicle before 20.02.2013.The complainant also suffered mental pain and agony and unnecessary harassments due to act and conduct of the opposite party by adopting unfair trade practice and he is deficient in service. That due to such activities of the opposite party the complainant files this complaint before this Forum for redress of all disputes and further prays for relief(s) as enumerated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
Hence, he filed the instant case before this Forum for redress of the dispute and prayed for direction to the O.Ps to (1) to issue Tax Invoice in the name of UTSAV MOTORS PVT.LTD. instead of BAJLA MOTORS PVT. LTD., (2)to return a sum of Rs. 10302/- (3) to Pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-for mental pain, agony & unnecessary harassment, (3) Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service & unfair trade practice, (4) Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
He filed the complaint on 03-06-2013 before this Forum enclosing, Money Receipt of Rs.3,000/- dated 18-12-2012 of UTSAV MOTORS PVT.LTD, (Annexure-‘A’), Money Receipt of Rs.1,30,000/- dated 19-12-2012 of UTSAV MOTORS PVT.LTD, (Annexure-‘B’), Money Receipt of Rs.1542/- dated 20-12-2012 of UTSAV MOTORS PVT.LTD. (Annexure-‘B’), Money Receipt of Rs3500/- dated 20-12-2012 of UTSAV MOTORS PVT.LTD. (Annexure-‘B’), Tax Invoice of Rs.1,07,453/- as Grand Total dated 31-12-2012 , Certificate of Registration of vehicle being No. WB 64G 8827 in the name Amlan Jyoti Choudhury(Annexure-C),Certificate Cum Policy Schedule of ICICI Lombard General Insurance being Policy No.3001/TM-00006319/00/000,Total Premium of Rs.5748/- (Annexure-C), Tax receipt of Rs.14040/- of Govt. of West Bengal issued by MV Department of District Magistrate, Cooch Behar (Annexure-C),Money receipt of Celex Technologies dated 13th Feb.2013 of Rs.499/-issued in the name of Amlan Jyoti Choudhury(Annexure-C),a xerox copy of petition dated 26.02.2013 filed before the opposite party knowing everything regarding the vehicle of this complainant(Annexure-D). an Affidavit before Ld. Notary dated 10-06-2013, an ‘Agentnama’ appointing Ld. Adv. Mr. Robindra Dey to conduct the case and one I.P.O. of Rs.100/-against Rs. 90,000/- and accordingly DF Case No.49/2013 was registered. The case heard on the point of admission on the very date and after hearing the agent of the complainant and considering the materials made available on record, notice was issued upon the opposite parties to file written version as to why the prayers as envisaged in the complaint shall not be granted.
That on 28.06.2013 opposite party appears by Sri Goutam Sarkar General Manger of Utsav Motors Pvt. Ltd. by appointing Sri Bibek Kumar Dutta, Adv. & Sri Himadri Sekhar, Roy Adv. of Cooch Behar as its legal representative/agent to conduct the case. The agent in his turn files a petition praying time to file Written Version on the ground stated in the petition and as such petition for time is allowed and fixed 23.7.2013 for filing Written Version. After a lapse of dates 23.7.2013, 5.8.2013 ,22.8.2013, 2.9.2013 & 17.9.2013 the agent of the opposite party files Written Version, copy duly served and a cost ofRs.500/-(Rs.200/-+Rs200/-+Rs.100/-)has been imposed upon the opposite party for taking adjournments. That after a lapse of dates 21.10.2013, 18.11.2013, & 05.12.2013 the agent of the opposite party files evidence–in-chief and on 6.2.2014 the agent of the complainant files evidence on affidavit and prayed time to file written argument, time is allowed. That on, 18.02.2014, 03.03.2014 & 21.03.2014 both parties filed petitions for filing Written Argument on their personal grounds. That on, 21.4.2014 the agent of the complainant filed a few documents, which were marked as exhibits 1 to 10 and kept with the case record for reference. Again on 15.05.2014, both agents filed petitions for time to file Written Argument and time allowed by imposing cost upon the parties and next date was fixed on 05.06.2014. That on 05.06.2014 both the agents filed petitions for filing written arguments and the Forum is constrained to fix another date on 19.06.2014 as last chance by imposing cost upon the parties for filing written arguments i/d final order. That on 19.06.2014 the agent of the opposite party files a petition praying time to file written argument on the ground stated in the petition. The petition is rejected and fixed 23.06.2014 for passing final order.
In the written version of the opposite party, it is averred that the complainant being a perspective purchaser went to the showroom of this opposite party, Utsav Motors Pvt. Ltd. and wanted to purchase one NANO car and with that intention, he booked the same at Cooch Behar office. The Ex-show room price was Rs.1,53,248/- at Cooch Behar. The Insurance charge was Rs.5,748/-, Registration Fess was Rs.20,400/- and Rs.3,500/- was assessed towards Temporary Certificate of Registration . In this way the price of the vehicle was Rs.1,82,896/- and there was a discount of Rs. 45000/- and after deducting the price came to Rs.1,37,896/-. Accordingly the contract was finalized with the complainant. That the complainant was told that the vehicle was not readily available due to shortage of stock and as the complainant expressed his desire to have the vehicle quick, the opposite party asked the complainant that they may brought the vehicle from other Dealer from outside Cooch Behar and the complainant nodded of such proposal and accordingly the opposite party imported the vehicle from Siliguri Dealer( as this answering opposite party have no stock by colour and mode) and that too with consent of the customer.
In this connection, it may be stated that there is some difference in between price of Cooch Behar and Siliguri Offices as per TATA Motors norms. The vehicle had to import from Siliguri. This answering opposite party had to arrange for TRP from Siliguri R.T.O. Office through the Broker and for such arrangement some brokerage charge has been paid towards Temporary Registration of the said vehicle.
This O.P. also averred that apart from registration of the vehicle, this answering opposite party had to pay some brokerage charges to the concerned Broker through whom they made registration of different vehicles and accordingly at the time of settlement of contract a sum of Rs 20,400/- was charged for Registration and Rs.3500/- for TRP, Rs.5748/- for Insurance charges and Rs. 499/- towards Number Plate apart from the value of the said vehicle. In fact the allegations as brought with regard to receipt of excess payment are emphatically denied. As the deal was finalized at Rs.1,37,896/-, accordingly the opposite party received the said amount ( the complainant paid Rs.1,38,042/-). In fact, the price of the vehicle comes to Rs.1,37,896/- but as it appears that the complainant paid Rs.1,38,042/- and there was refundable excess amount of Rs.146/- only. Any statements contrary to what have been stated are denied. In fact the complainant is stopped to claim the refund nor there any unethical activity as alleged. The question of suffering from mental pain and agony or deficiency of service and/or unfair trade practice as alleged is redundant and false. In fact, as it appears that complainant with some ulterior motive to squeeze some money has filed the case for wrongful gain and bargain and nothing else.
The agent for the Complainant has filed “Evidence in Chief” of the Complainant on 06.02.2014 which is nothing but a duplicate copy of the complaint save and except the sentence “This is true to my knowledge” under each paragraph and no new points came out for consideration. The Agent of the O.P. has filed Evidence of Sri Kalipada Das, Accountant of the O.P. Company on 24.12.2013 which also same as the W/V of the O.P.
The Agent for the Complainant appears on 19. 06. 2014 but no W/Ar. is filed. The Ld. Agent for the O.P has filed a petition praying further date for filing W/Ar. which is considered and rejected. Heard the ld. Agent of the Complainant in full and the argument of the O.P deemed to be heard and the date be fixed on 23.06.2014 for delivery of Final Order.
The complaint and other documents filed for the complainant are marked Exhibits for the sake of gravity of discussion and identification of the documents as bellow:
Exhibit-1. Money Receipt of Rs.3,000/- dated 18-12-2012 of UTSAV MOTORS PVT.LTD.
Exhibit-2. Money Receipt of Rs.1,30,000/- dated 19-12-2012 of UTSAV MOTORS PVT.LTD.
Exhibit-3. Money Receipt of Rs.1542/- dated 20-12-2012 of UTSAV MOTORS PVT.LTD.
Exhibit-4. Money Receipt of Rs.3500/- dated 29-01-2013 of UTSAV MOTORS PVT.LTD.
Exhibit-5. Tax Invoice of Rs.1,07,453/- after deducting the concession price of Rs.39,647.58/-of Bajla motors dated 31.12.2012 issued in the name of Amlan Jyoti Choudhury.
Exhibit-6. Certificate of Registration of vehicle being No. WB 64G 8827 in the name Amlan Jyoti Choudhury issued by the Registering Authority, Cooch Behar.
Exhibit-7. Certificate Cum Policy Schedule of ICICI Lombard General Insurance being Policy No.3001/TM-00006319/00/000,Total Premium of Rs.5748/-.
Exhibit-8. Tax receipt of Rs.14040/- of Govt. of West Bengal issued by MV Department of District Magistrate, Cooch Behar.
Exhibit-9. Money receipt of Celex Technologies dated 13th Feb.2013 of Rs.499/-issued in the name of Amlan Jyoti Choudhury.
Exhibit-10. Xerox copy of petition dated 26.02.2013 filed before the opposite party knowing everything regarding the purchase and delivery of vehicle of this complainant.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the Complainant Amlan Jyoti Choudhury is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
Point No.1. Whether the Complainant Amlan Jyoti Choudhury is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(i) of the consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein with the intention to purchase a Nano Car went to the opposite party for getting information and deposited the advance amount and subsequently agreed to pay the desired amount. Moreover, he got delivery of the purchased vehicle with full payment.
Point No.2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying in business within the district of Cooch Behar. The complaint valued at Rs.90,302/- at valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
PointNo.3. Whether the opposite party carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The opposite party being the Sale & Service centre of TATA Motors having its show room at Chakchaka More within the jurisdiction of Cooch Behar Forum is crystal clear from the Money Receipt as produced by the complainant. The complainant is a bonafide purchaser of a Nano car and he purchased the said vehicle from the opposite party. The complainant approached first time before the opposite party as a perspective purchaser of Nano Car and received all sorts of information regarding the value, service, features and description regarding the delivery of vehicle and being satisfied made advance payment of Rs. 3000/- on 18.12.2012 (Exhibit-1).Thereafter the complainant paid Rs.1,30,000/- by a cheque of HDFC Bank of Cooch Behar Branch being cheque No.073148 i.e. money receipt of opposite party marked as exhibit -2. Further deposited a sum of Rs.1542/- and Rs.3500/- on different heads. So the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,38,042/- (Rs.3000/-+Rs.1,30,000/-+Rs.1542/-+Rs.3500/-) in total. But the complainant received Tax Invoice of Bajla Motors of Siliguri dated 31/12/2012 of Rs.1,07,453/- in total after deducting the concession of Rs.39,647.58/-. In the written version of the opposite party clearly admitted that there was a discount of Rs.45,000/- but while making In Voice by the Bajla Motors concession was given Rs. 39,647.58/-. In the Written Version, the opposite party stated that the vehicle was not available according to colour and model in the Cooch Behar so it could be imported from Siliguri dealer and excess amount have to be paid as brokerage for temporary registration and in this arrangement the complainant gave his consent. But the opposite party could not produce even a single piece of paper from which we can come into this conclusion that the complainant agreed to pay the excess amount which is paid for brokerage and import from outstation. So it can be well established that the opposite party acted in his own will and no assent has taken from the complainant for arrangement of vehicle from outstation. The complainant nowhere stated that he desired to have the vehicle quickly and the opposite party failed to establish their plea. It can be easily presumed that the opposite party tried to save his own skin by taking false plea of excess charge of brokerage. The opposite party being a renowned business establishment should have transparency in dealing with the Complainant, a valuable customer. On perusal of the Exhibits 1-9 it appears that the Complainant maintained the norms to get the vehicle he intend to purchase but the O.P. Company by adopting unfair trade practice handed over a Tax Invoice issued by Bajla Motors Pvt. Ltd in favour of the Complainant of the amount Rs. 1,07,453/- only where as it is crystal clear from the documents that the Complainat paid Rs. 1.38,042/-. The O.P. Company also reduced the concession price from 45,000/- as it admitted in it’s Written Version the reasons best known to the Company.
It is pertinent point to mention that the O.P has totally failed to establish the plea it has taken by any cogent document as to the Ex- showroom price of the said Nano Car was Rs. 1,53,248/- etc. For the argument shake if we considered that in addition with the other charges like Registration fees, Insurance Charges, Cost of Temporary Registration Certificate etc. the price of the vehicle was Rs.1,82,896/- and after discount of Rs.45,000/- the sale price of the vehicle comes to Rs.1,37,896/- and for which the Complainant paid Rs.1,38,042/-, excess amount of Rs.146/- only. Now, if it is the fact then why the Bajla Motors issued the Tax Invoice of Rs.1,07,453/- in where no specific head of the amount of Registration Charge, Insurance Charge etc.? Then it is reasonably be presume that the O.P. Company by adopting such practice wanted to avoid payment of tax to the Govt. For which it cannot cast aside its deficiency in service towards the Complainant also liable to pay cost and compensation for adopting Unfair Trade Practice.
Point No.4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant is able to prove his case beyond any doubt and the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the Complainant as we deem fit and proper.
Point No.6. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s) prayed for?
As it is already proved in the discussion at point No. 3, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party then the Complainant is entitled to get relief(s).
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the O.P with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. The Opposite party is hereby directed to pay the excess amount of Rs.10,302/- received by the opposite party along with interest @ 10%p.a.from date of final payment till the payment. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/-to the Complainant for deficiency in service of the O.P. and mental pain and agony of the Complainant within 45 days of this order. For adopting Unfair Trade Practice the O.P. shall have to pay Rs.5,000/- as punitive cost to the State Consumer Welfare Fund within the aforesaid period of 45 days.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.100/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount if any by depositing in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
DCDRF, Cooch Behar DCDRF, Cooch Behar
Member Member
DCDRF, Cooch Behar DCDRF, Cooch Behar
