DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………….
Presents:-
- Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 20th day of February 2018.
C.C.No. 46 of 2017.
Subhendu Kumar Hota, age-44 years son of Krushna Ch.Hota.
Resident of Sagarpada, Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir.
.. .. .. Complainant,
-Versus-
1.The Proprietor, Laxmi Sales & Service Pvt. Ltd. Canal Avenue
Sayan NH-6,P.O.Gudesira, P.S/Dist- Bargarh.
2.Manager, Laxmi Sales & Services, Bolangir Branch,
At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
3.Sales Manager, Tata Motors Limited . Regd. Office-Bombay.
Housae-24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai-400001.
.. .. .. Opp. Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- Sri S.P.Mishra & Associates.
Adv. for Opp. Parties - Sri A.K.Sarangi & Associates.
Date of filing of the case -20.09.2017
Date of order - 20.02.2018
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
1 The complainant being attracted with the newly lunched Tata Tigor Car and its offer published in the news paper intends to purchase the same by exchanging his old used Tata Specio car and accordingly met the relationship manager of the O.P, who in turn agreed to the same and valued the old car for Rs 1,10,000/- to which the complainant had agreed and paid Rs 10,000/- towards booking charges of the new car on dt.24.05.2017. Thereafter on dt.6.6.2017 the O.P delivered a Tata Zest XM (Petrol) car to the complainant without registration and insurance and demanded Rs 30,000/- for insurance. The complainant denied to the same and insured the vehicle as per the advice of the financing bank and paid Rs 14,730/- to the New India Assurance Co. for insurance of the new car. But the complainant found that the O.P has supplied wrong engine number and chassis number. The complainant alleges that, till date the O.P has not corrected the said number which amounts to unfair trade practice. Further the complainant alleges that although he had paid Rs 34,500/- for registration of the new vehicle the O.P has not yet taken any step for the same and the O.P had also received an excess amount of Rs 2,961/- for the price of the new car. The further case of the complainant is that, after delivery of the old car, it is the bound down duty of the O.Ps to transfer the ownership of the car before the R.T.O. but has not done the same, therefore the liability of the old car is still remains with the complainant although he is not using the same. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainant has preferred this case for redressal.
2 The O.Ps 1 & 2 have filed their written version jointly and O.P.3 has filed his version separately. According to O.P.1 & 2 the complainant has to pay Rs 37,239/- for registration of the vehicle but the complainant had paid Rs 34,500/- and had not paid the balance amount of Rs 2,731/- for which the vehicle has not yet been registered before the R.T.O. and due to the non co-operation of the complainant the ownership of the old vehicle has not been transferred Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps 1 & 2.
3 The O.P.3 simply denied the complainant’s allegations and has not come up with any specific case.
4 During pendency of the case a petition u/s. 13-3(B) of the C.P.Act has been filed by the complainant for an interim order. Since the case has already been ready for final hearing, the case has been heard and disposed off on merit.
5 Heard both the parties. Perused the documentary evidence available on record. It isan admitted fact that, the complainant had purchased a Tata Zest XM car from the O.P by exchanging his old used Tata Specio car with the financial assistance of Bank of India. It is also an admitted fact that, the old used car has been valued at Rs 1,10,000/- which has been deducted from price of the new car, with these admitted fact the grievance of the complainant is that the O.Ps have delivered the new vehicle without registration and they have not transferred the ;owner ship of the old vehicle and they have published misleading advertisement and have not provided the facility as per the advertisement, which are to be decided.
6 It is evident from the documentary evidence ;available on record that, on dt.6..6.2017 the O.Ps have delivered a Tata Zest (XM) Petrol car to the complainant without registration and insurance. It is also seen from the pleadings of the parties that, the complainant had paid Rs 34,500/- to the O.P towards registration charges. This is evident from the money receipt No.24 dated 12.6.2017 issued by the O.Ps. In their version the O.Ps 1 & 2 have taken the stand that, for want of Rs 2,739/- the vehicle has not been registered and the said amount has been adjusted in the loan account. This stand of the O.P is not supported by any evidence. Further the O.Ps have no authority to adjust the amount in loan account without the consent of the complainant. When the O.Ps have received money from the complainant towards registration of the vehicle, it is their bound down duty to deliver the vehicle with registration and non performance of the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
7 It is seen from the Xerox copy of advertisement published by Tata Motors in Oriya daily news paper “Sambad” dt.13.06.2017 that, there are facility for purchase of Tata car before 20th June 2017. The offer provided to Tata Zest car is Rs 40,000/- off + free insurance + exchange benefits + assured gifts. In the present case in para-12, of the complaint petition the complainant admitted that, Rs 40,000/- has been deducted but the other facility has not been provided. It is also a fact that the O.Ps have provided exchange benefits for the old car. With these evidence available on record as per the advertisement the O.Ps are under obligation to provide free insurance to the complainant. It is not in dispute that the complainant had insured the vehicle on payment of Rs 14,730/- to the insurance company. Therefore the O.Ps are liable to refund the same.
8 Under the aforesaid material available on record, it is evident that the complainant is unable to use the new car for want of registration for which the complainant suffers a lot and also sustained financial loss. It is also the bound down duty of the O.Ps to transfer the owner ship of the old vehicle when they provided exchange facility. Hence ordered.
ORDER.
The O.Ps are directed to register the Tata Zest XM (Petrol) car in the name of the complainant and transfer the ownership of the old used car Tata Specio of the complainant in the name of the O.P before the R.T.A and to refund Rs 14,730/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Further the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the complainant towards compensation and cost within the aforesaid period.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
Order pronounced in open court this the 20th day of February 2018.
( S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
Member President
