IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 129/S/2014.                              DATED : 08.02.2018.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBERS              : SRI TAPAN KUMAR BARMAN.

COMPLAINANT    1.                :  ANIL KUMAR GUPT ,

   S/o. Fodilal Gupta,

   resident of Narmaa Bagan Lane,

   P.O.- Champasari, P.S.- Pradhan Nagar,

   Dist.- Darjeeling.     

O.Ps.              1.                       : TATA MOTORS LIMITED,  

   having its Regional office at Rene Tower,

   3^rd Floor, 184L, Rajdanga Main Road,

   Kolkata – 700 107.

                        2.                     : THE DIRECTOR,

                                                              Lexicam Motors,  

  Regd. Office – Trinity Plaza,

  84/1A, Topsia Road (South),

  Kolkata – 700 046.

                                    3.                     :  THE BRANCH MANAGER (SALE),

   Mr. Saroj Jha,

   C/o. Lexicam Motors, Matigara,

   P.O. & P.S.- Matigara, Dist.- Darjeeling.

                                    4.                     : TATA MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED,

  Regd. Office Nanavati Mahalaya,

  3^rd Floor, 18 Homi Mody Street,

  Mumbai, 400 001.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Joydev Chakraborty, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.

The brief facts of the complaint case are that the complainant booked a vehicle being TATA Sumo Gold CX BS II at the showroom of OP Nos.2 & 3 M/S Lexicon Motors on 13.03.2014 and paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- against which the OP Nos.2 & 3 issued a money receipt.  The complainant again paid an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- for the said car on 04.04.2014 against down payment and OPs

Contd.....P/2

-:2:-

issued a money receipt in their letter pad.  The complainant again paid on 07.04.2014 an amount of Rs.16,500/- to the OP No.3 for the vehicle against down payment and the OPs issued a money receipt in this regard in their letter pad.  The complainant brought the vehicle from the OP No.3 at his referred address but he could not ply the same as the relevant documents were not delivered by the OP No.3.  OP No.3 assured at the time of sale of the car that as soon as the document of Registration of the car is ready the same will be sent to the complainant.  After waiting for a considerable period, the complainant got in touch with the OP No.3 and asked for the document of registration of the car along with permit but he was asked to wait further for some more time.  The OP No.4 meanwhile started collection of the EMIs for the said vehicle.  The complainant made contact with OP No.3 over telephone and requested him to return the documents so that the same could be furnished to the RTO, Siliguri but OP No.3 requested the complainant to collect the documents from the showroom on 12.08.2014 and on that date one declaration was made by the staff of the OP No.3 Mr. Narendra Pun who sold the vehicle to the complainant (Annexure 4 - declaration dated 08.08.2014).

The OPs for their illegal gain did not deliver the Registration Book along with permit of the vehicle to the complainant although the complainant has regularly paid the insurance amount and EMI for the said vehicle.  The complainant has been harassed, misguided and subjected to unwanted and tremendous economic hardship for such illegal activities of the OPs and the above acts and activities of the OPs amount to gross negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service within the meaning of the C.P. Act, 1986.  Hence, this case. 

OP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 have entered appearance and contested the case by filing three separate of written versions wherein the material averments made in the complaint have been denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable.  It has been stated by the OP Nos.2 & 3 that the complainant booked a car for purchase at the showroom of OP No.3 on 13.03.2014 however, OP denied that complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- only for a TATA Sumo Gold CX BS II car by cash and they have received the said amount by issuing a money receipt.  It has been further stated by the OP Nos.2 & 3 that the annexure-1 (money receipt dated 13.03.14) is a false and fabricated document and this OPs did not issue the said annexure-I and did not receive the sum of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant.  It has been further stated by the OP Nos.2 & 3 that the complainant was an old and acquainted customer of the OPs and as such OPs did not insist the complainant for making an advance payment of Rs.40,000/- and in fact no such amount of Rs.40,000/- was received by the OPs.

Contd.....P/3

-:3:-

It has been denied by the OP Nos.2 & 3 that the complainant again paid on 04.04.2014 an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- only to the OP No.3 for a TATA Sumo Gold CX BS III car by cash against down payment and they have received the said amount by issuing a money receipt in their letter pad dated 04.04.2014.  It has been stated by the OP Nos.2 & 3 that the Annexure 2 - money receipt dated 04.04.20124 is a forged and fabricated document and not issued by the OPs.  It has been further submitted by the OP Nos.2 & 3 that the complainant paid Rs.1,38,000/- only on 13.06.2014 and the complainant further paid a sum of Rs.9,000/- on 14.06.2014 and the complainant was further given a credit for a sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of scheme credit discount and as such the complainant was given credit for a total sum of Rs.1,62,000/- vide worksheet cum appraisal form PCD and marked as Annexure A.  It has been further denied by the OP Nos.2 & 3 that complainant again paid on 07.04.2014 an amount of Rs.16,500/- only to the OP No.3 for a TATA Sumo Gold CS BS III car by a cheque against down payment and that they have received the said amount by issuing money receipt in their letter pad dated 13.06.2014.  It has been further contended by OP Nos.2 & 3 that the money receipt dated 13.06.2014 (Annexure-3) is also a forged and fabricated document and the same is not signed by the OPs.  It has been further denied by the OP Nos.2 & 3 that the complainant could not use the said vehicle for non delivery of the all relevant documents on the contrary the OPs submitted that complainant is using the said vehicle for commercial purpose by plying the said vehicle as a taxi by availing the services of the paid driver and as such the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.           

It has been further stated by the OP Nos.2 & 3 that Mr. Narendra Pun is a broker and the OPs have no concern and connection with him and he is concerned with the registration of the motor vehicle in the M V Department and the complainant dealt with said Narendra Pun regarding the vehicle in question.  It has been further submitted by the OPs that on the request of the complainant the OP No.3 Mr. Saroj Jha signed in the document dated 13.08.2014.  It has been further stated by the OPs that they have already handed over all the documents to the complainant vide Annexure B and the complainant filed the instant case with malafide motive and as such he is not entitle to get any relief as prayed for and the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

OP No.1 has stated in his written version that this OP is a renowned manufacturer of various types of commercial vehicles and passenger cars and being the manufacturer of the vehicle has no role to play in obtaining registration

Contd.....P/4

-:4:-

or rout permit for any customer.  It has been further contended by OP No.1 that the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act as there is no deficiency in service being established against this OP, hence the averments/allegation made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived the complaint is liable to be rejected.  It has been further stated by the OP No.1 that there has been no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and as such the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The OP No.4 TATA Motors Finance Ltd. is contesting the case by filing a separate written version.  It has been stated by the OP No.4 in the written version that complainant as per established principle of law does not fall within the definition of consumer and the relationship between the complainant and the OP No.4 is that of borrower and lender and as such no consumer dispute arises and it is essentially a civil dispute for which the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.  It has been further stated by the OP No.4 that the complainant has defaulted in repayment of the instalments within the prescribed time and he has not come before this Forum with clean hands and the complainant has filed the instant case with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment to this OP and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.       

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Xerox copy of Money Receipt dated 13.03.2014.

2.       Xerox copy of Money Receipt dated 04.04.2014. 

3.       Xerox copy of Money Receipt dated 13.06.2014. 

4.       Xerox copy of Declaration dated 08.08.2014.

Complainant has filed examination-in-chief supported by affidavit.

Complainant has filed written notes of argument.

OP Nos.1, 2 & 3 have filed examination-in-chief.

          OP Nos.2, 3 & 4 have filed Written Notes of Argument.

Points for determination

1.       Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section

2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

2.       Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs ?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Contd.....P/5

-:5:-

Decision with reason

Issue No.1

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant booked a vehicle being TATA Sumo Gold CX BS II at the showroom of OP Nos.2 & 3 M/S Lexicon Motors on 13.03.2014 and paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- against which they issued a money receipt.  The complainant again paid a sum of Rs.1.25,000/- for the said car on 04.04.2014 against down payment and the OP Nos.2 & 3 have received the said amount and issued a money receipt in their letter pad.  The complainant again paid on 07.04.2014 an amount of Rs.16,500/- to the OP No.3 by a cheque against down payment and they issued a money receipt in this regard in their letter pad.  Complainant brought the vehicle at his referred address but he could not ply the same as the document regarding registration of the car along with permit was not delivered to the complainant by the OP No.3. 

From the four corners of the complaint petition as well as evidence led by the complainant we do not find any such averment that the complainant is a ‘consumer’ and/or that he purchased the vehicle in question for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.   

The impugned vehicle (TATA Sumo Gold CX BS II) allegedly purchased by the complainant from OP No.3 and according to the complainant he could not ply the vehicle for want of route permit as the same was not supplied by the OP No.3.  There is no hesitation to hold that in case of a private car the route permit is not required, but in case of a commercial car it is necessary to ply the vehicle on road.  In this case it is not understandable as to why the complainant required the route permit for playing the vehicle in question, if it is a private car.  Here we find that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and it would be used by the complainant for commercial activities and as such he required the route permit.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industries Institute (1995) II CPJ I (SC) held that if any person has obtained goods for commercial purpose with a view to using the said goods for carrying on any activity of profit other than exclusively for self employment such person is excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

From the facts and circumstances of the present case it is clear that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and complainant intends to use the vehicle for commercial purpose and therefore the complainant is excluded from the definition of ‘consumer’.

Thus, the Issue No.1 is decided against the complainant.

Contd.....P/6

-:6:-

When it is held that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so, this Forum is of the view that Issue Nos.2 & 3 are not required to be discussed.                    

In the result, the case fails.        

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.129/S/2014 is dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.