LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Services consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/386
Sri Basudev Chanda
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Managing Director, Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Ltd. and another
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 386 / 2007
1) Sri Basudev Chanda,
23/M/15, Naktala Road,
Kolkata-700047. ---------- Complainant
---Verses---
1) The Managing Director,
Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Ltd.,
197, Peters Road, 2nd Floor, Ganeshan Office Complex,
Chennai-600014.
2) The Managing Director,
Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Ltd.,
6A, Middleton Street, Kolkata-71. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.
Order No. 1 2 Dated 2 5 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9 .
1. Instant case arises out of the complaint made by Shri Basudev Chanda u/s 12 of C.P. act, 1986 against (1) Managing Director, Maruti Country Wide Auto Financial Services Ltd., 197, Peters Road, 2nd floor, Ganeshan Office Complex, Chennai-600014 and (2) Manager, Maruti Country Wide Auto Financial Services Ltd., 6A, Middleton Street, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71 with a prayer to (1) refund of total amount paid amounting to Rs.2,92,650/-, (2) payment of compensation for mental harassment and agony amounting to Rs.1 lakh and (3) payment of litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- and (4) interest @ 18% p.a. on the above amounts of money till the date of settlement.
2 (a) Specific case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Maruti 800 DX with registration no.WBO 2N-5165 through Maruti Auto Finance Loan bearing no. MCAM 00000603 sanctioned by o.ps. (annex-letter dt.12.1.02 of o.p. addressed to the complainant). The complainant paid cash including penal charges of Rs.500/- against each bounced cheque of Rs.4850/- (annex - money receipt dt.27.10.05, 26.9.05, 30.4.05, 26.3.05, 25.2.05, 29.12.04, 29.11.04, 31.10.04, 29.7.04, 25.3.04, 27.2.04 and 27.1.04).
(b) The complainant though paid his last EMI on 30.11.06, the o.ps. had not issued the NOC (no objection certificate). Instead the o.ps. have been asking for money amounting to Rs.6000/- as bouncing charges in respect of 13 bounced cheques.
(c) Though the complainant has written to the o.p. vide letter dt.4.12.06 addressed to o.p. no.2 to issue NOC and return his bounced cheques, (annexure of the petition- page 17), but instead of issuing NOC, the o.ps. alleged that the complainant had not paid Rs.6000/- as bouncing charges in respect of 13 bounced cheques.
(d) The complainant avers that by not issuing NOC to the complainant, the o.ps. have resorted to unfair trade practices u/s 2 (1)(r) of C.P. Act, 1986.
Hence the case.
3. Decision with reasons :
(a) Due to the absence of o.ps. from the outset of this case, ex parte hearing was ordered against o.ps. vide order no.5 dt.24.4.08.
(b) On perusal of the pleadings, affidavit of examination-in-chief of the complainant, BNA of the complainant, and documents on record, it is evident that he complainant had paid all the dues i.e. EMI (annex- page 8A, 9 to 15 and page 16 of the petition of complaint).
(c) The o.p’s demand to pay Rs.6000/- towards bouncing charges does not hold any water since the complainant had paid Rs.500/- as bounce charges in each case of cash payment (annex-page 9 to 15 of complaint). This undue demand of the o.p. to pay Rs.6000/- as bounce charges which were already paid by the complainant at the time of cash payments of 13 numbers of bounced cheques, is nothing but unfair trade practices.
(d) The 1st EMI of Rs.4850/- was paid by the complainant at the time of purchasing the Maruti car in question as evident from the annexure-A of evidence on affidavit of the complainant (page 1 & 2 of the annexure of evidence on affidavit).
(e) It is strange to note in spite of payment of 60(sixty) EMIs by the complainant, the o.ps. have not issued NOC and revoked the hypothecation of the car in question, which are not only unfair trade practices but also deficiency in service. In fact, if somebody does not perform his part of the contract it amounts to deficiency in service under the C.P. Act, 1986.
(f) The non appearance of o.ps. and their non submission of w/v indicate that they have no tangible evidence in their hands to controvert the allegations made by the complainant against the o.ps. and they waived the rights by their inaction in this regard.
(g) The complainant, thus, with help of his pleading, affidavit of examination-in-chief, BNA and documents on record and by his oral submission has been able to substantiate his case successfully against the o.ps.
Hence, ordered,
that (i) the o.p. nos.1 and 2 are directed jointly and /or severally to issue “No Objection Certificate” to the complainant in respect of the Maruti car in question positively within thirty days from the date of communication of this order. In default, the o.p. nos.1 and 2 should pay jointly and / or severally Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) only per day to the complainant till this “No Objection Certificate” is issued. (ii) no order needs to be passed in respect of refund of Rs.2,92,650/- (Rupees two lakh ninety two thousand six hundred fifty) only paid by the complainant towards the purchase of Maruti car, since the said car is in possession of the complainant since its purchase and over and above, the complainant has not adduced any evidence anywhere to prove that the car has got any inherent defects, (iii) the o.ps. are directed to revoke the hypothecation of the car with the o.ps. within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, o.p. nos.1 and 2 should pay jointly and / or severally Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) only per day to the complainant till the hypothecation of the car is revoked, (iv) The o.ps. are also directed to stop demanding Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand) only as bounce charges of 13 bounced cheques as the same was paid by the complainant at the time of cash payments against each bounced cheque, with immediate effect from the date of communication of this order and in default, the o.p. nos.1 and 2 should pay jointly and / or severally Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty) only per day to the complainant till the demand for undue amount of Rs.6000/- is stopped. (v) The complainant is awarded a compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for his mental agony and undue harassment caused by the o.ps. owing to their deceitful act and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the aforesaid amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.50,000 + Rs.10,000) will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till its payment in full.
Fees paid are correct.
Accordingly, the case is disposed of from this Forum.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of payment of prescribed fees.
Submit Complaint..
harrasment over chq bouncing charges A/c No. MDLM00046677 
needed to know whether there is any due is there for maruthi800 m.b.o.m.00002338 
