Minakshi Chakroborty,  Presiding Member

Brief facts of the case:     This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that convincing and believing the huge advertisement regarding selling true value second hand car the complainant went to the showroom of the opposite party at Howrah for purchasing a true value second hand Maruti Alto 800 LXI registration no. WB52R1635 and it registered in the name of Rajen Kumar Pal and the price of the said car was settled amounting to Rs. 1,89,000/- including all charge i.e. basic vehicle price, R.T.O. transfer and service charges, Hypothecation charges and the complainant paid advance amounting to Rs. 25,000/- by cash and rest amount of the total consideration money amounting to Rs. 75000/- through finance, Hypothecated this car and thereafter the opposite party delivered the possession of the said car in favour of the complainant at his residence. But after passing one month when the complainant met with the officials of the opposite party to know about the processing regarding the transfer of the ownership name of vehicle the opposite party assured him that it would be completed within one month but the complainant did not receive any positive response. Again the complainant went to the office of the opposite party for the same purpose but the officer of the opposite party drove him and using filthy and abusive language and threatened him with dire consequences and asked him to contact at their Rishra office. On 20^th March, 2018 further the complainant went to opposite party and met with the Managing Director personally and according to instruction of their officials the complainant wrote a letter addressing the opposite party where the complainant given them further one month time for transferring the owner name of the car otherwise they will be liable to take return the said car but the opposite party did not take any effective steps in this regard. The opposite party asked the complainant over mobile phone to meet at their Rishra showroom on 10.9.2018 and the complainant went accordingly where they clearly stated that they have nothing to do and they are unable to transfer the name of the car in the name of the complainant.

            Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony, anxiety and harassment causes by deficiency in services and to give any other relief/ reliefs as deem fit and proper.

Evidence:

            The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.

            Complainant filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced on behalf of the complainant heard at length.

            From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Issue No:- 1.

It transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the ground of his purchasing one second hand Maruti car Alto 800 LXI by making cash payment of Rs. 25000/ and Rs. 75000/ through Finance.

 Issue No:-2

Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents/ having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per his petition of complaint it appears that those do not exceed Rs. 20, 00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present case.

Issue Nos. 3 and 4 :

Both the issue nos. 3 and 4 are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience .Admittedly the petitioner, while being examined as P.W 1 has stated that he purchased the MARUTI Alto 800 LXI second hand car on payment of consideration of Rs. 1,89,000/ including all charges that is basic vehicle price, R.T.O transfer, service charges and hypothecation charges as it appears in para 4 of his affidavit -in- chief .

On scrutiny of the record it appears from order 6 dated 09.03.2019 that notice has duly been served upon the O.P but despite receiving of notice the O.P neither appears nor takes any steps resulting hearing of the instant case as ex-parte.

From the evidence of P.W 1 it appears that though promised by the opposite party to register the said car in the name of the complainant within one month from the date of purchase, the O.P has miserably failed to do so; that apart even after receipt of a letter by the O.P as suggested by the managing director, the O.P has not taken any fruitful steps for transferring the ownership of the car in the name of the complainant.

On consideration of the above discussion there is no other alternative but to hold that there is deficiency in service by the opposite party. In this connection this Commission also takes assistance of the definition of deficiency as has been scribed under section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in view of failure of the O.P to transfer the ownership registration of the aforesaid car in the name of the complainant within 30 days from the date of his purchase on 20.02.2017 as it appears from the customer copy relating to vehicle registration process dated 20.02.2017. Be it mentioned herein that this “customer copy” bears the heading“ BHANDARI AUTOMOBILES” date 20.02.2017 wherein it further appears that the said “customer copy” bears the signature of the complainant himself.

Thus it is evident that this deficiency has created a burden upon the managing director, BHANDARI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.(sole opposite party) to take effective steps to get the name of the present petitioner transferred in respect of the vehicle number MARUTI alto 800 LXI within 30 days from the date of order .

The petitioner is also entitled to get an amount of Rs. 10000/ for mental agony and harassment.

In this case the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ in his prayer portion regarding this matter, this District Commission after examining the evidence on record finds that there is no basis in support of such claim of compensation. This claim is bereft of any data, facts and figures. But after considering the facts and circumstances of the case this District Commission is of view to award Rs. 20000/ as compensation to the complainant.

Both the issues are thus disposed of.

Hence,

ordered

That the complaint case no.156 of 2018be and the same is disposed of ex-parte.

The managing director, BHANDARI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.(sole opposite party) is directed to take effective steps to get the name of the present petitioner transferred in respect of the vehicle number MARUTI alto 800 LXI within 45 days from the date of order. Otherwise complainant is given liberty to execute this order as per law.

The petitioner is also entitled to get an amount of Rs. 20000/ for mental agony and harassment.

               In the event of failure to comply with the above order the opposite party shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay. On expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.

               Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.