In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.411 / 2008

1)                   Sova Das,

W/o Sri Anup Kumar Das,

Vill- Kalua, P.O. Joka,

P.S. Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700104                                        -------------Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   The Proprietor, Austin Distributors Pvt. Ltd.,

19, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,

P.S. New Market, Kolkata-87     

2)       The Manager, Global Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

57, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,

P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-71

3)         The Manger, Family Credit Ltd.,

15, Park Street, Appeejay House,

Block-A, Kolkata-16                                                        ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

Order No.   33    Dated  25/09/2012.

            The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Sova Das against the o.ps. Austin Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and others.  The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased motor cycle for personal use from o.p. no.1 on 1.2.08 having two years warranty having no.WB-20S-7385 against down payment Rs.11,516/- on 16.1.08 of the Family Credit Ltd. as full consideration  and Family Credit Ltd. started to collect insalment of Rs.11,888/- to ECS process. But subsequently within warranty period the said motor cycle became unworthy and complainant informed the concerned authority on 6.3.08, 29.4.08 and some repairing were done and thereafter the vehicle started posing problem and matter was brought to the notice of o.p. nos.1 and 2 on 25.8.08 requesting them to refund the value of the vehicle in question, but o.p. nos.1 and 2 did not pay heed to that. Hence the case.

            O.p. nos.2 and 3 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them. In their w/v they have stated that the allegations have got no leg to stand upon and the instant case is liable to be dismissed. O.p. no.1 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.1.

            Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is nobody’s case that complainant did not purchase the vehicle in question from o.p. nos.1 and 2 and it is further admitted position that some repairing were undertaken by o.p. nos.1 and 2 for the problem cropped up in running the vehicle during warranty period and thereafter too the vehicle became unworthy use and the matter was brought to the notice of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and they did not pay heed to that.

            In view of the above position and taking into consideration of the materials on record we are of the views that o.p. nos.1,2 and 3 had sufficient deficiencies being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. nos.2 and 3 and ex parte with cost against o.p. no.1. O.p. nos.1,2 and 3 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.31,701/- (Rupees thirty one thousand seven hundred one) only to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realization and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. Complainant is directed to return the motor cycle in question to o.p.1 after realization of the entire awarded amount.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.