West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/146/2016

Sri Pratap Dolai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Volta Motors - Opp.Party(s)

11 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.146/2016

 

                                                  Sri Pratap Dolai, S/o Tapan Dolai, Ballavpur, P.O. Midnapore,                                        

P.S. Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.….………Complainant

Versus

                                                               To, The Manager, Volta Motors at O.T. Road, Inda               

                                                             P.O. &  P.S. Kharagpur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur,.……….Op.

 

For the Complainant:  Mr. Somasish Panda, Advocate.

For the O.P.             :  Mr. Swapan  Bhattacharya, Advocate.                     

                                                                    Decided on 11/09/2017                             

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – This instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant Sri Pratap Dolai alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above mentioned O.P.

                       Case of the complainant, in brief, is that being an unemployed person the complainant purchased a battery operated e-rickshaw  from the O.P. who is the  manufacturer and seller of the said vehicle,  at an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on 07/09/2015  for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. It is stated by the complainant that after receiving such amount O.P. issued a proforma invoice cum delivery challan vide no.133 dated 07/09/2015 against Model-Puspak. Colour-red, Reg. No.KVM-78. It is further stated by the complainant that for getting his vehicle registered under the Motor vehicle department, the complainant has required some indispensible/essential documents which he asked to the O.P. but the O.P. refused to

                                                                                                                                                                       Contd………..P/2

                                         

                                                                           ( 2 )

issue the said documents i.e.  Form-21, Form-22, TCR etc. and informed the complainant to meet with them in different dates. Accordingly the complainant did the same but O.P. did not issue the said documents till date. It is stated in the petition of complaint  that the O.P. has issued one proforma invoice cum delivery challan vide no.354 dated 18/09/2015 and a money receipt on 07/09/2015. It is further stated in the petition of complaint that the said indispensable documents were required to be  submitted before the Motor vehicle  Department within 90 days from the issuance of the offer letter by the Motor vehicle Dept. for registration of the said vehicle but  the complainant could not submit the same within the stipulated period due to non-issuance of the documents by the O.P. It is specifically stated by the complainant that if the O.P.  fails to issue those documents the complainant will not be  able to register the  said vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Department of Medinipur, which will make him to incur  a great financial loss. The complainant, therefore, sent a legal notice dated 15/04/2016 for demanding the said requirement for obtaining permit from concerned R.T.A.  through his  ld. Advocate. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the O.P.  denied to issue the said documents inspite of the repeated request on several occasion made by the complainant which compelled him to file  this instant case. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction to the O.P. to refund Rs.1,20,000/- alongwith interest @18% , to pay  Rs.10,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation and to pay another  Rs.50,000/- towards mental pain and agony.

             O.P. has contested this case by filing written version, denying and disputing all the material allegation lebel against them, stating that at the time of selling the                        e-rickshaw no agreement was executed by and  between the parties for which the O.P. may be held liable to issue those documents O.P.  further stated that during the period on and from 07/09/2015 to 13/10/2015 all the e-rickshaw owners including the complainant in Paschim Medinipur  had no legal approval to run the vehicle on  road and also stated that according to  a circular dated 14/10/2015  issued by the Collectorate of Paschim Medinipur,  the complainant applied for grant of a permanent contract carriage permit of e-rickshaw  on 30/11/2015 and subsequently a permit was issued on 07/12/2015 by the R.T.A., Paschim Medinipur  vide memo no.2851(510)/MV and as per the said permit an offer letter was issued by M.V. Dept. on 07/12/2015 and  through this letter the complainant was directed to place brand new e-rickshaw  against the submission of certificate of approval of  model prototype  by the registered central  agencies like CIRT, ARAI and ICAT etc. within 90 days  from the date of issue of the offer letter. It is

                                                                                                                                                 Contd………..P/3

                                         

                                                                                

                                                                                   ( 3 )

further stated by the  O.P. that the complainant purchased his e-rickshaw on 07/09/2015 before the issuance of offer  letter on 07/12/2015 of M,V, Department, Paschim Medinipur which show that the stipulated period of 90 days had been lapsed on 07/12/2015.  The O.P. reiterated that he has no liability/contractual obligation for providing any documents like Form-2, Form-22, TCR etc. to the complainant and therefore he can not be held liable for non registration of the said e-rickshaw under M.V. Department.  Accordingly the O.P. has prayed for dismissal/rejection of the case with cost.

                 Both parties adduced evidence. In support of their case they deposed on dock as PW-1 and O.P.W.-1 & 2 and during their evidence some documents are marked as exhibit 1 to 4 & A, B respectively.                 

                                                                                                        

                                           Points for determination.

   

1. Is the complainant consumer under the O.P. ?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

                                                                                           

                                            Decisions with reasons.

             Point no.1.                             

 The complainant paid consideration and bought an e-rickshaw from the O.P. and thus has become the consumer under the O.P. as per provision under section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, 1986.

Point no.1 is decided accordingly.  

             Point no.2.

             Admittedly, the complainant purchased an e-rickshaw from O.P. against the payment of Rs.1,20,000/-.  This is the specific allegation of the complainant that the O.P.  did not provide him some documents like Form-21,  Form-22, TCR etc. in time for enabling him get  his vehicle registered under the Motor Vehicle Department  for which he could not  get his vehicle register under the said  authority and therefore, is going to incur  huge financial loss. It is the specific defence of the O.P. that no agreement has been executed to the effect that the O.P.  could provide any document like Form-21, Form-22, TCR and  specifically certificate of approval of model prototype  and, therefore, cannot be held liable for said document. On perusal of documents on record it appears from the letter dated 15/04/2016  issued by the complainant through his

Contd………..P/4

                                                                              ( 4 )

Advocate to the O.P. that the requisite certificate of approval of model proto type  for obtaining permit from the concerned  R.T.A. to  operate the same in the specified area    to be provided by the O.P. It further appears from the offer letter dated 07/12/2015 issued by the Motor Vehicle Department  to the  complainant in response to his  application  for registration of e-rickshaw under Motor Vehicle Department, certain documents including certificate of approval of model prototype  are required to be filed by the complainant.  It is, therefore, evident that the complainant was to have filed the certificate of approval of model prototype for registration of the e-rickshaw but non-availability of the said document registration of the said vehicle has not been materialized. The complainant alleged that the O.P. was to provide the said certificate to the complainant and non-providing of the said certificate by the O.P. resulted in non-registration of said e-rickshaw for which the O.P. should be held deficient in providing service. But fact remains that no documents have been brought before us wherefrom it will be evident that the O.P.  agreed to provide documents including certificate of approval of model prototype to the  complainant. Therefore non-providing of the said documents on the part of the O.P.  cannot be considered fault in manner of performance in providing service to the complainant on the part of the O.P.  and thus it cannot be  held that there is  deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.    

               Point no. 2 is decided accordingly.

Point no.3.

               Since the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no question of granting any relief arises at all.

               Point no.3 is decided accordingly.

                             In the result the consumer complaint case does not succeed.

                            Hence, it is,

                                                        ORDERED

                                                    that consumer complaint case being no.146/2016 is hereby dismissed without any cost.

              Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                          Sd/- S. Sarkar                            P. K. Singha                                 Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                               Member                                  Member                                           President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur