Tripura

West Tripura

CC/28/2015

The Additional Secretary & Director of School Education. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Hindustan Motors Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. T.K.Deb.

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-   28   of   2015

The Additional Secretary & 
Director of School Education,
Government of Tripura, Agartala.    ...........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___

1. The Managing Director,
Hindustan Motors Limited,
9/1 R.N. Mukherjee Road,
Birla Building (14th floor), 
Kolkata-16. 

2. The Sales Manager,
Hindustan  Motors Limited,
9/1 R.N. Mukherjee Road,
Birla Building (14th Floor),
Kolkata-16.

3. Shri Abhijhit Roy Choudhury,
Prop. Indu Motors,
Authorized Dealer of Hindustan Motors,
6, Sukantala Road, Agartala,
West Tripura.                .........Opposite parties.
    
      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Tapas Kr. Deb,
                      Advocate.

For the O.P. No.1 and 2        : Sri Amrit Lala Saha,
                      Sri Kajal Nandi,
                      Sri Abheek Saha, 
                      Advocates.                                           
    For the O.P. No.3            : Mrs. Sujata Deb(Gupta),
                      Sri Sampad Choudhury,
                            Advocate.    

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  12.04.2016

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by the petitioner, Additionlal Secretary & Director of School Education against the Managing Director, Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Proprietor of Indu Motors. Petitioner's case is short is that the petitioner paid Rs.5,55,157/-  as 100% advance for purchasing one A/C Ambassador. The amount was paid to proprietor of Indu Motors, Abhijit Choudhury, O.P. No.3. O.P. No.3 admitted and agreed to supply the ambassador within 2 weeks. But he failed to supply it. Petitioner again and again requested him for supply of ambassador. He then requested to refund the amount taken for supply of ambassador which is not supplied after 8 months. Communication made with Hindustan Motors. Hindustan Motors informed about suspension of work in the factory for which the ambassador could not be delivered. O.P. No.3  several time gave a false information for supply and caused much sufferings to the complainant. Thereafter  after waiting for one year this case filed for realization of the amount and also for compensation for deficiency of service.
        O.P. No.3 only appeared, filed W.S  denying the claim. It is stated that the amount received by him was sent to Hindustan Motors. But Hindustan Motors failed to send the vehicle.  Therefore, he has no deficiency of service. 

        Managing Director of Hindustan Motors appeared and filed W.S. on behalf of the O.Ps No.1 and 2. It is stated that presently manufacturing of any automobile is suspended. No transaction was made directly with the petitioner and Indu Motors as the factory is closed. So, the ambassador could not be delivered. This is not a deficiency of service. O.P. No.1 and 2 therefore, prayed for dismissal of the case.

        On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the petitioner paid the amount to O.P. No.3, proprietor of Indu Motors who failed to fulfill the promise?
        (II) Whether the O.P. had deficiency of service and petitioner is entitled to get the compensation?
        
        We have gone through the petition, W.S. filed by the O.Ps. Petitioner side produced dealer order, copy of RTGS, E-mail, advocates notice, cheque dated 18.02.14, correspondence letters, supply order, quotation, all exhibited and marked as Exhibit 1 Series. 
        Petitioner also examined one witness, Kumar Jamatia, Deputy Secretary, School Education.

        O.P. No.3 on the other hand produced dealer order, RTGI fund transfer, Mail correspondence, also examined one witness i.e., the Proprietor of Indu Motors, O.P. No.3.

        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points:

    FINDINGS:
        It is admitted and established fact that O.P. No.3, Abhijit Roy Choudhury received the amount being the dealer of Hindustan Motors at Agartala. In the cross examination Abhijit Roy Choudhury admitted that on the basis of quotation given by him supply order was given by Additional Director of School Education. Accordingly Director of Education issued cheque for Rs.5,55,157/-  and the vehicle is to be delivered within 2 weeks. It is also admitted that he could not deliver the vehicle. Money also could not be refunded. We have gone through the quotation and found that the value of the ambassador is written Rs.5,74,991/-. And in the supply order rate is given  Rs. 6,48,628/-. This supply order is issued by Accounts Officer, Director of School Education. The amount includes 14.5% VAT and also 2 % IT. Photocopy of the cheque of Gramin Bank, Tripura, Agartala clearly shows that cheque amounting to Rs.5,55,157/- was issued by Director of School Education in favour of Indu Motors, Agartala. O.P. No.3 admitted that he was the Proprietor of  Indu Motors. So, there is no doubt that amount was received by O.P. No.3 being the proprietor of Indu Motors. The matter was informed to Sales Manager, Hindustan Motors by Additional Secretary and Director by letter dated 03.03.14. Another letter was also written. Abhijit Roy Choudhury, proprietor requested the Accountant of Director of School Education to wait for receiving the vehicle. Director of Education on 02.08.14 requested Managing Director of Hindustan Motors to refund the amount. Hindustan Motors denied the fact and informed that money was not received from Indu Motors. But the Proprietor of Indu Motors, Abhijit Roy Choudhury submitted the photocopy of some documents. From the RTGS fund transfer in the State Bank of India it is found that Rs.4,94,026/- was sent to Hindustan Motors. The dealer order form also bear this thing. From the perusal of the evidence of Abhijit Roy Choudhury  it is clear that Rs.4,94,026/- was sent to Hindustan Motors for supply of ambassador A/C model. So, from above discussion it is clear that the amount of Rs.5,55,157/- was received by Abhijit Roy Choudhury, proprietor Indu Motors out of this he sent Rs.4,94,026/- to Hindustan Motors. So, percentage of deficiency of service of Indu Motors was less. 

        From the evidence it is clear that proprietor of Indu Motors tried his level best to bring the vehicle from Hindustan Motors. Hindustan Motors received the amount but denied it. Suddenly the factory was closed down without any 6 months notice. The dealer was not aware about such sudden closure. So, he received the supply order and also advance payment. Accordingly he sent the amount to the Hindustan Motors. Hindustan Motors was very negligent. The closure of the factory was much later. During interim period Hindustan motors could sent the vehicle but it failed to do so. Therefore, Hindustan Motors had deficiency of service and adopted unfair trade practice. 

        From the analysis of the evidence it is clear that the proprietor  being dealer received the amount of Rs.5,55,157/-  from the Director, School Education so he is liable to refund the amount as he could not supply the vehicle. It is true that he tried but without taking prior intimation about the condition of the factory he received the amount. So, he must return the amount to the petitioner with 6% interest from the date of receiving the amount i.,e., on 18.02.14. O.P. No.1 and 2 Hindustan Motors had the deficiency of service. They could not supply the vehicle after receiving the amount from the dealer, Indu Motors. Therefore, O.P. No.1 and 2 is to pay Rs.2 lakhs for their deficiency of service. Both the points are decided accordingly.

        In view of our above findings over the 2 points this petition is allowed. We direct the O.P. No.1 and 2 to pay the amount of Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner for their deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. We direct the O.P. No.3, proprietor, O.P. No.3, Indu Motors to pay Rs.5,55,157/- by way of refund of the amount along with interest @ 6% from the date of receiving the amount till payment is made. Case is disposed of accordingly. 
                        
                    Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, WEST TRIPURA.