The simple version of this complainant, that enumerated in the complaint is that the complainant Sri Rajdip Chakraborty, S/o. Ranabir Chakraborty intended to purchase a car i.e. contacted with the O.P. i.e. Utsav Motors Pvt. Ltd., Cooch Behar. On 14-02-2013 the complainant purchased Tata Safari Dicor under Chassis No.403071JT2N06442, Engine No.D1COR06HTZ886082 with an Authority Letter valid from 14-02-2013 to 13-08-2013 after deposited amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- on 04-02-2013, Rs.50,000/- on 07-02-2013 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 13-02-2013) from the O.P with assurance that they will render all relevant documents related the said car in favour of the complainant, Rajdip Chakraborty within validity period of the Authority Letter which was issued by the office of the O.P. But the office of the O.P did not give any documents related the car to the complainant. After that the complainant contact with the O.P and they said that deposit the car to the O.P showroom and accordingly the complainant do the same on 13-09-2013 and the O.P assured him that they will contact after completion all the documents as soon as possible but the complainant did not get any documents till date. After that the complainant again and again contacted with the office of the O.P but all are in vain.
Hence, the complainant filed the instant Case No. DF-4/2014 with enclosed some Xerox copy of documents together with one I.P.O. of Rs.100/- before this Forum for redress of the dispute and prayed for direction to the O.P for returning (1) Rs.3,50,000/- which was deposited to the O.P (2) Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony & unnecessary harassment, (3) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
In the present case the Opposite Party entered its appearance through Ld. Agent filed Written Version without supporting affidavit and thereafter there was no appearance of Opposite Party as such the case heard in Ex-parte.
The Opposite Party by fling W/V admitted the fact of purchasing the vehicle and the vehicle at present lying in its custody. The O.P. contended that at the time of delivery the vehicle the O.P. handed over all the documents to the Complainant and the Complainant himself deposited the vehicle to the O.P. as such it has no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainants are entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the evidence on affidavit of the Complainant and also heard Ex-parte argument.
Point No.1.
Evidently the complainant purchased a Tata Safari Dicor from the O.P., Utsav Motor Pvt. Ltd. against certain payment. So, relation between complainant and O.P so established from the record is that no doubt the complainant is a consumer under the O.P.
Point No.2.
Evidently, the Showroom and Workshop of O.P., Utsav Motors Pvt. Ltd. is situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum.
We further find that in this case total claim is Rs.4,60,000/-i.e. far less amount than the prescribed limit. So, it is clear that this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No. 3 & 4.
Undisputedly, the Complainant purchased a Tata Safari Dicor from the O.P. Utsav Motoron 14.02.2014 on payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- . Admittedly the said vehicle was sold by the O.P. vide their chalan no. 1167(Annexure 3) against payment of Rs. 3,50,000/-(annexure 1,1A,1B,1C) which reveals that except Sale invoice no documents handed over by the Opposite Party. On giving a close look to the materials on record it appears that the Complainant purchased an old car from the Opposite Party admittedly it deals with the sale of new and old car. The registered owner of that vehicle is one Smt. Bibha Sarker and all the papers in connection with the vehicle are in the name of Smt. Bibha Sarker, the Registered owner. Annexure 2 reveals that Smt Bibha Sarker authorizes the present Complainant to drive her vehicle bearing Registration No.SK 02A 4864 by issuing an Authority Letter that valid on and from 14.02.2013-13.08.2013. So, it is crystal clear that the Complainant had right to drive the said vehicle only for the above mentioned period. Similarly, the Complainant has no right on that vehicle after the said period as till date he is not the registered owner of that vehicle. Thus, the desire of purchase and use of the vehicle is totally satire. As per section 39 &43 of the motor Vehicles Act 1988 it is necessary to register any vehicle before plying on the road. In this case the Complainant received an authority letter and we did not find any documents as to the transfer of ownership of the vehicle, Temporary Registration Certificate in the name of the Complainant also NOC. The O.P. being a seller of the said vehicle had to complete all the formalities and handed over the valid documents to the Complainant at the time of sell the vehicle.
Admittedly the vehicle in question at present within the custody of the Opposite Party since 13.08.2013. Annexure 1,1A,1B,1C reveals that the Complainant deposited cash amount of Rs. 1,00000/-, 1,00000/-, 50,000/-1,00000/- respectively i. e. in total Rs. 3,50000/- to the Opposite Party for purchasing the Vehicle No. SK02A4864.
It reveals that the Opposite Party sold the vehicle to the Complainant without proper documents. Moreover, the documents as received by the Complainant are in the name of Smt. Biva Sarker, the registered owner of the vehicle. It also appears that the vehicle question is 2nd hand for which at the time of sell the O.P. must have to supply the documents in the name of the present complainant as he purchased the said vehicle after due payment. The O.P. has also duty to co-operate the Complainant for registration of the vehicle in the name of the Complainant. By not getting proper documents and without registration the vehicle in his name the Complainant has no right to ply the vehicle since a long period thus caused severe mental pain to him and that cropped up due to the deficiency in service of the O.P. Admittedly the vehicle is at present in the Show Room of the O.P. that tantamount to unfair Trade Practice as the Opposite Party duly received the entire price of the vehicle from the Complainant and it has no right to keep the vehicle in its custody.
The Opposite Party did not file any Evidence on affidavit in support of its pleas also did not come forward before this Forum on several dates. Considering the conduct of the O.P. it is crystal clear that it realized that there is no defense and such sort of non-appearance and non-challenging the allegation by producing authentic documents compelled this Forum to heard the matter in Ex-parte. On the contrary the Evidence of the Complainant including materials as produced by the Complainant are un-challenged testimony in support of his case which cannot disbelieve by this Forum under any circumstances.
In the light of foregoing observation and discussion we are inclined to hold that the Complainant proved his allegation against the Opposite Party with cogent documents.
As the deficiency in service is already proved the Complainant is entitled to get relief.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The DF Case No.4/2014 is allowed in Ex-parte against the O.P with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Opposite party is hereby directed to hand over the vehicle with valid documents including NOC obtained from the previous owner, Bibha Sarker to the Complainant within 45 days also take positive step for registration the vehicle in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant will bear the cost of registration.
The Opposite Party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony, unnecessary harassment of the Complainant caused by the deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice by the O.P.
The entire order shall comply by the O.P. within 45 days i/d 8% interest p.a. will be assessed over the ordered amount till its final realization and for non compliance of the Forum’s order the O.P. shall have to pay Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
