National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shri Adarsh Tulshan & Anr. vs Smt Jhunu Kar & Anr. on 3 December, 2018
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1273 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 30/12/2014 in Appeal No. 247/2012 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. SHRI ADARSH TULSHAN & ANR. PROPRIETOR OF M/S SPEED INC., PROPEEIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE ITS OFFICE AT 39, JAWARHARLAL NEHRU ROAD KOLKATA WEST BANGAL- 700071. 2. M/S SPEED AUTO SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 241/2B, ACCHARYA PRAFULLA CHANDRA ROAD, KOLKATA - 700004. WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SMT JHUNU KAR & ANR. W/O SHRI NIROD KAR, AT PRESENT RESIDENT AT VILLAGE-BHATANDA, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION RAJARHAT DESTRICT 24 PARGANAS (NORTH) KOLKATA-700135 WEST BENGAL 2. ICICI BANK LINITED 31, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR KOLKATA-700 016 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : NEMO For the Respondent : Mr. Udayan Roy, Advocate & Mr. Prasenjit Burman, Advocate for R-1.
R-2 Ex-parte vide order dated 24.03.2017.
Dated : 03 Dec 2018 ORDER Case taken up on the second call. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the Petitioner even though notice has been served on the Petitioner. The Respondent has also served the Petitioner and has filed an Affidavit which is taken on record.
2. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Respondent and perused the impugned order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. From the record we find that the Respondent No. 1 who was the Complainant before the District Forum had filed a Complaint alleging that the Petitioner herein from whom he had purchased a second-hand Qualis car for a sum of Rs.4,62,500/- had not provided the blue book and other related documents for the said car in question which resulted in pecuniary loss with harassment and mental agony. He claimed refund of Rs. 1,12,500/-, Rs. 3,500/-, Rs. 14,400/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- under various heads which included the bank loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- sanctioned by ICICI Bank Ltd. The District Forum on perusal of evidence and material on record only directed the present Petitioner herein, who was the Opposite Party No. 1 in the Complaint, to hand over blue book and other related documents after transfer of name in the registration certificate along-with the corrected Insurance Policy documents to Complainant i.e. the Respondent No. 1 herein within 30 days from the date of the communication of the order failing which it will carry a penalty of Rs. 50/- per day till the actual receipt of the same by the Complainant as also the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 10% till full realization if the amount is not paid within 45 days.
3. Feeling aggrieved the Complainant herein filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties at length and perusal of evidence on record allowed the Appeal in part and the Petitioner herein, who was the Opposite Party No. 1 before the District Forum and Respondent No. 1 before the State Commission, was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,86,400/- comprising of Rs.1,12,500/-, Rs. 3,50,000/- Rs. 14,400/- and Rs. 9,500/- with the condition that after receipt of the entire payment the Complainant shall return the car to the Respondent No. 1/Opposite Party No. 1. The directions for handing over the blue book was set aside. The Opposite Party No. 1/Respondent No. 1 is the Petitioner herein. Nobody has appeared on its behalf. From the order of the State Commission we find that the car is also in possession of the Respondent No. 2/Opposite Party No. 2 who is Petitioner No. 2 herein. The fact that the car is not in their possession is not being seriously disputed. As the blue book was not handed over to the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 at the time when the sale of the vehicle in question was made, the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 could not satisfactorily use the vehicle and, therefore, it was the liability of the Petitioners herein to compensate the Complainant for the loss/damages, harassment and mental agony suffered by her. The order of the State Commission does exactly the same as it has directed for the refund of Rs. 4,86,400/-.
4. We may mention here that before the State Commission the Petitioners herein had not challenged the findings, recorded by the District Forum, regarding the deficiency of service committed by the Petitioners herein and the same has attained finality as they had not preferred any Appeal before the State Commission against the order passed by the District Forum.
5. In view of the fore-going discussion we find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the State Commission. The Petition fails and is dismissed.
6. As the present Revision Petition has been dismissed, IA No. 8667/2018 has become infructuous and the same is hereby dismissed.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER