This is a discussion on Lap Automobiles . within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA – 700 027 S.C. ...
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA – 700 027
S.C. CASE NO-FA/08/321
DATE OF FILING : 19.8.2008 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:20.3.09
1. Shri Puspajit Mondal .
2. Shri Biswajit Mondal.
Both Sons of Sri Anil Mondal of Dakshin,
Gopalpur, P.S- Balagarh , District – Hooghly.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S : :
1. Lap Automobiles .
Authorized Dealer for Arjun 500 of West Bengal
Having its Office/ Show Room at B-9 /164, Kalyani,
Nadia, West Bengal.
2. The Manager,
India Lease Development Limited
Financer of this vehicle , having its office at M
G F House , 17-B, Asaf Ali Road , New Delhi- 11002.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE :
MEMBER : Shri. A.K. Ray.
MEMBER : Shri. P.K. Chattopadhyay.
FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Shri S. Mitra , Smt C Sen. ( Advocates)
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Ranjana Talapatra. (Advocate)
SHRI A.K.Ray., Member,
The Dist Forum, Hooghly in its order dated 9.4.08 passed in case no 174 of 05 dismissed the complaint on contest without any costs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Appellants have preferred the instant appeal. The case of the Appellants in short is that they purchased a Mini Door 4 Wheeler Arjun 500 Vehicle from OP No 1, Kalyani Nadia on hire purchase basis from OP No 2. The Petitioners had to make initial down payment o Rs. 1,15,001/- as per instruction of Respondent no 1. The aforesaid amount also included registration fees. The aforesaid amount was paid by the Petitioners in installments on 4 dates. The balance amount was to be paid in 30 equal monthly installments amounting to Rs. 3,824/- .As security , the Petitioner No 2 issued 15 blank cheques drawn on SBI , Tribeni branch. OP No 1 told the Petitioner that the rest amount was to be paid in 36 installments @ Rs. 3,824/- and from initial down payment of Rs. 1,15,001/- , Rs. 15,000/- was for the purpose of registration of the vehicle. EMI was paid for more than 8 months by demand draft issued from State Bank of India @ 3,824/- per month. Registration of the vehicle was done at Motor Vehicle Department , Chinsurah. The Petitioner was surprised to learn that only a sum of Rs. 170/- had been paid as tax on 26.8.05 and Rs. 920/- for registration paid on 27.5.05. OP No 1 then claimed a sum of Rs. 1,15,001/- . The petitioner , being suspicious of the activities of OP No 1, demanded a statement of account of the car finance from OP No 1. It was not provided to him by OP No 1. The Petitioner then approached the OP No 2 through their letter dated 24.11.04 and OP No 2 sent details of Petitioner’s case sheet. The Petitioner came to learn that out of the initial down payment of Rs. 1,15,001/- only a sum of Rs. 56040/- had been paid to the dealer by the Petitioners. OP No –1 thus rendered illegal and unfair trade practice with regard to purchase of the vehicle namely Arjun 500 vehicle no WB 15 A 1074. The Petitioner obviously suffered from mental tension, agony and financial loss.Hence the case before the Forum with certain prayers which included refund of excess money received by OP No 1 with interest and to adjust such excess amount towards the loan amount in respect of monthly installments along with a cost of Rs. 33,000/- to be paid by OP No 1.
The complaint was opposed by the OPs separately by filing W.V. OP No 1 stated that the case suffered from non joinder of necessary party as manufacturer of the subject vehicle M/s Arjun Motors had not been made a party to the proceeding. Op No 1 denied payment of Rs. 1,15,001/- from the Petitioner and also payment by signing blank cheques.
The specific case was that the Petitioner approached OP _1 for purchase of a vehicle on higher purchase basis at a price of Rs. 1,93,720/- .They signed invoice. OP no-2 was the financier. According to their terms and conditions margin money amounting to Rs. 56040/- was to be paid but the Petitioners only paid Rs. 51,001/- and the rest amount ,i.e Rs. 5039/- was required to be paid by OP No 2 Rs. 15,000/- was required for registration, road tax and insurance. This was also paid by this OP. The vehicle was delivered on 23.03.04. OP No 1 further averred that besides the down payment of Rs. 51,001/- the Petitioner paid Rs. 64,000/- on two occasions after delivery of the vehicle. This OP –1 paid Rs. 5039/- and Rs. 15,000/-for taxes etc totalling Rs.20,039/- and after adjusting the said amount with Rs. 61,000/- the balance amount of Rs. 43961/- had been deposited to OP No 2 in the name of the Petitioner. OP No 2 submitted that as no relief was sought for against it, the Complaint was liable to be rejected. OP-2 did not recognize OP No 1 as its authorized dealer .
The Forum below dismissed the complaint holding inter alia that transaction between the Petitioners and the OPs was that of a borrower and creditor for which the Forum was not the proper Forum for taking account and deciding the amount due to any of the parties as the relationship between the parties was that of borrower and creditor. Adjudication of the dispute in the instant case was refund of excess money or adjustment of the same towards the loan and principal amount which were matters of calculation and it could be better done in the civil court and not by a Forum constituted under the C.P Act 1986. Moreover, the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose by the Petitioners who never stated in their petition nor filed any documents to show that the vehicle purchased was being used for earning livelihood. In absence of such declaration or relevant document it was difficult for the Forum to brush aside the objection raised by the OP regarding use of the subject vehicle for commercial purpose. Thus the Petitioners could not be considered as consumers. Secondly, the Forum further held that none of the OPs either resided nor worked for gain within the jurisdiction of the Forum below as the office of Respondent no 1 was at Kalyani in Nadia and that of Respondent no 1 at Delhi. The Petitioner’s contentions was that though the vehicle was purchased from Op No 2 at Kalyani, Nadia but registration and insurance of the same was done at Chinsura in Hooghly and hence, the Forum had ample jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. But registration and insurance of the vehicle at Chinsurah could not be termed as cause of action either wholly or in part in-as-much as the Petitioner had no complaint against the office of registration or office of insurance in Hooghly in their petition in question. The Forum therefore decided the case against the Complainants and accordingly, dismissed the same on the aforesaid grounds.
We have heard the parties to this case at length and have perused the impugned judgement and other papers which are available with the record. We do not find any irregularity or illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid order of the Forum below. The Appeal in the light what has been stated above has no merit and therefore fails to succeed.
It is accordingly, ordered that the appeal be dismissed on contest without cost. The impugned order of the Forum below be affirmed.