DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DUMKA

                                                                                                    CC No.27 of 2012

                                                       Kailash Yadav ………………………………….. Complainant

                                                                 Vs

                                                   Proprietor of Golu Automobiles and Construction Pvt. Ltd…………………....………OP

                                                   Dewata pandey,  Proprietor of Basukinath Automobiles Deogar.

 30.05.2015                                                                                  ORDER

      This complaint is filed under the provision of The Consumer Protection Act 1986 for redressal of grievance of the complainant by passing an award in his favour for the amount claimed in para 10 of the complaint petition which discloses principal amount Rs.68900/: compensation Rs.25000/ and litigation cost Rs.5000/.

     Case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased a  new Suzuki Motor Cycle Model No.GS 150 R; Engine No.G423-157072; Chassis/ Frame no.MB8NG 49 AJB  8120647 from Basukinath Automobiles (OP2) against the payment of amount Rs68900/ including the registration fee and Insurance Premium . Out of the amount Rs.50000/ was paid in cash and Rs.18900/ through cheque No.524066 drawn at SBI, Hansdiha Branch (Dumka) in favour of OP2 for which two  receipts no.250 and 255 both dated11.11.2011. The Motor cycle along with key and delivery note was handed over to the complainant on the same day with assurance to hand over the registration certificate and Insurance paper as w ell as sale letter after week. After passing assurance period the complainant visited OP2 whereupon one week more time was requested for by OP2. The complainant again visited after 20 days and demanded the said  all related papers. But the Op2 gave only Insurance certificate and for remaining papers asked him for further time. On visit after 15 days next, the OP2 gave him a Xerox copy of Sale letter and a receipt of retail invoice both dated 12.12.2011 for Rs.63000/ issued by M/s Golu Automobiles and Construction Ltd (OP1). Thereupon it was learnt that the OP1 (Basukinath Automobiles) is not a dealer rather it works on behalf of OP1. Thereafter the complainant contacted to OP2 several times for getting registration of the newly purchased vehicle. But no result. It is said to be refused by the Ops lastly on06.08.12 giving rise to cause of action to this complaint.

       On notices to the Ops the OP1 and OP2 appeared in the case. The OP1 Golu Suzuki filed his version. But the Op2, Dewata pandey,  Proprietor of Basukinath Automobiles having appeared on 31.01.2013 did not filed any version.

          So far the version filed by the OP1 is concerned, it is averred that this OP is dealer of Suzuki Motor and its registered office situates at N.H.31 Begusarai. It is also said that the OP2 Basuki Automobiles, Deoghar is Sub-dealer. It is further pleaded that the complainant never approached to this Op1 either at the time of purchase or after that for registration paper. The Motor cycle  in question was purchased from OP2 and money was paid to OP2. This OP1 after confirmation regarding sale of Motor Cycle by OP2, issued retail invoice in the name of consumer. There is no direct transaction with this Op1 and as such there is no question of providing any type of service by this OP1 to the complainant. It is lastly denied payment of Rs.18900/ by the complainant to OP2 by mode of cheque as came to the knowledge of this OP1. It is thus said that this OP1 is not liable to pay for any claim. Objection regarding Jurisdiction of this Forum is however raised by this OP1.

             We have heard the case and have gone through the record. As mentioned above the Op2 (Dewata pandey,  Proprietor of Basukinath Automobiles ) having appeared in the case on notice (on 31.03.13) did not contested the case as he opted not to file his version. So far Op2 is concerned, he has admitted that OP2 is sub-dealer and dealing was made only in the name of  Basukinath Automobiles (OP2). The payment of amount in regard to the purchase of the bike by the complainant is not specifically denied by the OP1 or OP2. Rather Op1 has pleaded in his version that after confirmation of sale of the bike, the Invoice letter was issued to the complainant. A formal denial is however made regarding payment through cheque Rs.18900/ for which the complainant has valid receipt issued by OP2. It was admittedly paid to OP2 ( Basukinath Automobiles) who did not choose to contest the payment. No evidence is produced on behalf of any of the OPS to contradict the payment of Rs.18900/

           On the other hand the complainant has produced  the copies of the receipts of Rs50000/ by cash and Rs.18900/ through cheque against the two receipts issued by Op2(Basukinath Automobiles) both dated 11.11.2011. Three witnesses including the complainant 1 Kailash Yadav,2 Tiwari Raut and 3 Rama Kapri  on affidavit have taken oath in support of the contention of the complainant. There is nothing to discard their evidence rather it finds support from the documentary evidence.

             Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that out of total payment Rs68900/(50000+18900), an amount of Rs.4466/ is realized excess as retail Invoice Rs63000/+ Insurance premium Rs1434/ comes to onlyRs.64434/. Admittedly this amount was paid to OP2 ( Proprietor of Basukinath Automobiles). We therefore direct the OP2 (Dewata pandey,  Proprietor of Basukinath Automobiles) to pay the amount of Rs.4466/ (four thousand four hundred and thirty four) to the complainant. We also allow Rs.2000/ (two thousand) as litigation cost. So far Op1 M/s Golu Automobiles and Construction Ltd is concerned, no order is passed against it.

 The order shall be complied within one month failing which the complainant will be at liberty to get it executed through process of the Forum.

 Let free copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.