KOZHIKODE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CIVIL STATION

consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/351

U P SASIKUMAR
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

MANGER,TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. G Yadunadhan B.A.
2. Jayasree Kallat M.A.


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER By G. Yadunadhan, President:

The case of the complainant is that complainant had taken an hire purchase loan from the opposite party on 13.3.2006 for his vehicle No. KL-7/J 279 Bus. He had also taken Insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Co. and the copy of the policy was given to the opposite party on 15.3.2007. When the complainant reached at the office of the opposite party, they told the complainant that they also had taken a policy for the same bus, for the same period from Unite India Insurance Co. as per policy No.020900/31/6/01/000/11/414 dated 1.2.2007. But this fact was not intimated to the complainant. Surprised by this act the complainant asked the opposite party to cancel and remit that amount towards his loan account. The opposite party agreed for the same. On 6.5.2008, when the complainant approached the opposite party for verification of the balance amount, it is seen that no such steps (to cancel the double policy) were taken by the opposite party, but they assured that they would take necessary steps. On 6.5.2008 when the complainant approached for closing the loan amount they had insisted the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.42500/- towards over due and made him pay Rs.93100/- to close the amount. On 28.6.2008 when the complainant approached the opposite party, they insisted to pay an amount of Rs.29000/- under the pretext of charging of bouncing of a cheque of Rs.20000- (an excess amount of Rs.9000/- for the alleged bouncing of a cheque worth Rs.20000/-). According to repay schedule, total instalments were 35 in numbers for the total hire purchase amount, i.e., Rs.370920/- (ranging from 13.3.2006 to 13.1.2009). Though the complainant made the prior closure loan amount during June 2008 the opposite party collected an amount of more than Rs.350957/-. Therefore complainant is seeking relief against the opposite party to return an amount of Rs.71065/-.

After serving notice, opposite party was called absent and set exparte.

Complainant filed affidavit and he was examined as PW1. Ext. A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainant.

From the deposition, affidavit and Exts. A1 to A6, complainant’s case is proved.

In the result petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to return an amount of Rs.29000/- as per Ext.A4, which is already collected in excess and a compensation of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Comply the order within 30 days on receipt of the copy of this order.

CONSUMER complaint NO. 111 OF 2008

Between:
Farhat Khanam, W/o. Fayazuddin, age 40 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H. No. 2-7-166, Mukarampura, Karimnagar.

…Complainant

AND

1. Tata Financial Services Ltd, Concern of Tata Motors Limited (TML) Rep. by it’s Branch Manager, C/o. H. No.8-6-396, Kothi Rampur,
Hyderabad Road, Karimnagar district.
2. M.S.Mayuri Associates, Rep. by M.Rajashekar, Shop No.111, 1st FLOOR, Suma Archade Raj Theatre, Karnool – 518 001.
3. SVA Stockyard rep. by its Manager, Bhavani Nagar, Katta Rampur, Karimnagar.

…Opposite Parties

This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 8-4-2009, in the presence of Sri M. Anil Kumar and G. Sridhar, Advocates for complainant and Sri V. Jagadish Chander Rao, and Y. Manohar Rao, Advocates for opposite party no.1. The opposite party no. 2 and 3 remained exparte, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:

::ORDER::

1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.51,790/- along with costs of the complaint.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one TATA-INDIGO-LS Car in the month of Dec. 2006 by obtaining loan from opposite party no.1. The total cost of the vehicle is Rs.5,27,690/- out of which the complainant paid Rs.3,27,690/- and availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from opposite party no.1. As per the hypothecation agreement the opposite party no.1 advanced the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for which he charged Rs.28,000/- towards finance charges. Thus the complainant had to repay a total sum of Rs.2,28,000/- in 24 monthly installments @ Rs.9,500/- per month. The installments commenced from 30.11.2006 and ended on 2.11.2008. At the time of sanctioning the loan the opposite parties collected service charges and Retainer-charges of Rs.1,100/-. It is further submitted by the complainant that she has been paying the monthly installments regularly by issuing cheques of VIJAYA BANK and also paid some installments in cash. On 8.8.2007 the opposite party no.2 came to her house and taken possession of her Car informing the complainant that the opposite party no.1 authorized them to take possession of the vehicle as she committed default in paying the installments and after seizure the Car was kept in the Stock-yard of opposite party no.3 for 14 days for which the opposite party no.3 charged Rs.50/- per day. It is further submitted that when the Car was seized, it was in good condition but when it was kept with opposite party no.3 it was badly damaged and many scratches and dents were found. Infact the complainant did not commit any default in paying the installments, but the opposite parties illegally taken possession of the vehicle. When the complainant shown the payment bills and Bank statements the vehicle was released after collecting Rs.700/- towards parking charges. When the damages to the Car were got checked up in show-room on 20.5.2008 they estimated the damages to the tune of Rs.21,790/-. The complainant claimed that the seizure of the vehicle is illegal and on account of it she was put to lot of humiliation for which she claimed Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards expenses for pursuing the matter and Rs.21,790/- towards estimated repair charges. The complainant claimed an order for payment of the said amount on the ground that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service.

3. The opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 remained exparte and did not choose to file any counter. The opposite party no.1 filed counter stating that the complainant purchased TATA-INDIGO Car for Rs.5,27,690/- by availing loan from their finance. The opposite party no.1 also stated that the complainant availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from them for which they charged her for Rs.28,000/- towards finance charges and as per the loan agreement the complainant has to repay the total loan amount of Rs.2,28,000/- in 24 installments commencing from 30.11.2006 ending on 2.11.2008. The opposite party no.1 denied the claim of the complainant that she has been paying the installments regularly. It is submitted that when the complainant became defaulter in paying the installments, the opposite party no.1 authorized opposite party no.2 to re-possess the vehicle from the complainant, but opposite party no.1 is not aware whether the vehicle was seized by opposite party no.2 and that it was kept in the Stock-yard of opposite party no.3. Further opposite party no.1 denies the allegation of the complainant that when the vehicle was kept in the stock-yard of opposite party no.3 it was damaged for which the repairer estimated the loss of Rs.21,790/-. Infact the complainant fabricated the said estimation for the purpose of this case. It is further claimed by the opposite party no.1 that the seizure of the vehicle is reasonable and justified as the complainant committed default in payment of the monthly installments and that there is no deficiency of service on their part, as such the claim of the complainant for damages, compensation and costs is not tenable in law and liable to be dismissed.

4. The complainant filed her Proof-Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint. She also filed Additional Proof Affidavit to dispute the claim made by the opposite party no.1 in the counter. The complainant got marked documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A17. Ex.A1 is the copy of TML Financial Services Lt (Contract Details) Dt: 27.3.2007 (in 2 sheets). Ex.A2 is the copy of TML Financial Services Lt (Repayments) Dt: 27.3.2007. Ex.A3 is the copy of TML Financial Services Lt Repayments Schedule Dt: 27.3.2007. Ex.A4 is the copy of Vijaya Bank statements (7 statements). Ex.A5 is the copy of letter from opposite party no.1 addressed to opposite party no.2 Dt: 2.8.2006 in respect of authorization for repossession. Ex.A6 is the copy of accounts statement. Ex.A7 is the copy of receipt for parking charges Dt: 29.6.2007. Ex.A8 is the negatives of photographs. Ex.A9 is the photographs of Car (6 photos). Ex.A10 is the estimation copy for Rs.21,790/- signed by Select Motors Dt: 20.5.2008. Ex.A11 is the receipt for Rs.3,00,000/- Dt: 21.11.2006 issued by Select Motors. Ex.A12 is the original copy of Ex.A7. Ex.A13 is the original copy of Ex.A6. Ex.A14 is another statement of accounts from the period 1.4.2007 to 20.8.2007. Ex.A15 is the statement of account from 18.8.2007 to 30.6.2008. Ex.A16 is the particulars of regular payments. Ex.A17 is the statement of account from 1.1.2006 to 20.8.2007 (in 3 sheets).

5. The opposite party no.1 filed Proof Affidavit of its Legal Manager reiterating the averments made in the counter and filed copy of Loan Agreement which is marked as Ex.B1.

6. The points for consideration are:
(1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
(2) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

7. The case of the complainant is that she purchased TATA INDIGO-LS Car for Rs.5,27,690/- by availing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party no.1. As per the terms of the Loan Agreement the complainant has to repay the said loan with finance charges of Rs.28,000/- within a period of 24 months @ 9,500/- per month. At the time of releasing the loan the opposite party no.1 obtained all documents including 24 cheques of VIJAYA BANK from the complainant. It is contended by the complainant that since the date of loan she has been paying the monthly installments regularly, but the opposite party no.2 seized her vehicle illegally, and kept the same in the stock-yard of opposite party no.3 for 14 days. When the complainant showed the Bank statement containing the regular payment of installments, the vehicle was released after collecting Rs.700/- by opposite party no.3 towards parking charges under Ex.A7 and Ex.A12. Subsequently it was found that there are many dents and scratches to the Car and the complainant got the repairs estimated by the select Motors authorized Centre of TATA Dealer who prepared estimate for Rs.21,790/- under Ex.A10. It is contended that on account of illegal seizure of the Car the reputation of the complainant is lowered in the society. Therefore, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/- expenses of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.21,790/- towards repairing charges.

8. It is contended by the opposite party no.1 that the complainant committed default in payment of the monthly installments due to which they authorized opposite party no.2 to repossess the vehicle. Accordingly opposite party no.2 took possession of the same by virtue of the authorization under Ex.A5 Dt: 2.8.2006. The opposite party no.1 contended that they are not aware of collecting charges by opposite party no.3 and also about the damages to the vehicle. The opposite party no.1 contended that as per loan-cum-hypothecation agreement under Ex.B1 this FORUM has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there is an Arbitration Clause in the agreement. The opposite party no.1 further contended that the seizure of the vehicle is not illegal, but justified as the complainant committed default in paying the installments.

9. A perusal of Ex.A1 which is a statement showing the loan contract details reveals that the complainant purchased TATA INDIGO Car by availing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from opposite party no.1. It also discloses that the complainant paid Rs.1,100/- to the opposite party no.1 towards service charges. Admittedly the complainant had to pay total loan amount of Rs.2,28,000/- in 24 equal monthly installments of Rs.9,500/- per month. In the Additional Affidavit it is clearly stated by the complainant that at the time of releasing the loan the opposite party no.1 obtained all the loan documents along with 24 cheques of VIJAYA BANK towards payment of monthly installments. The case of the complainant is that she has been paying the installments regularly by arranging sufficient balance in her account and the monthly installment amount is transferred to the account of opposite party no.1. The statement of the accounts maintained by VIJAYA BANK which was marked as Ex.A4, A13 to A15 and Ex.A17 discloses that the monthly installments were transferred on presentation of the cheques by opposite party no.1. Inspite of payment of the installments regularly the opposite party no.2 under authorization seized the vehicle from the complainant on the ground that the complainant committed default in payment of the installments. When the complainant produced statement of account showing transfer of monthly installments, the opposite party no.1 did not choose to produce the Extract of statement of Loan Account to dispute the claim of the complainant regarding payment of the installments regularly. Surprisingly the opposite party no.1 did not furnish the particulars of the installments which were not paid by the complainant either in their counter or in the Proof Affidavit filed by their Manager. Further, the opposite party no.1 has not produced any evidence before this FORUM to show that the cheques issued by complainant were dis-honoured on account of insufficient funds. The Statement of Account issued by VIJAYA BANK clearly established that the monthly installments were received by the opposite party no.1 through cheques only.

10. Admittedly the complainant's Car was seized by opposite party no.2 and kept it in the stock-yard of opposite party no.3 for 14 days. At the time of releasing the vehicle opposite party no.3 collected Rs.700/- towards parking charges for 14 days on 29.6.2007 by issuing a receipt under Ex.A7. In this case the opposite party no.2 is the best person who can speak about non-payment of installments by the complainant. But the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.3 remained exparte and did not choose to file any counter. It is the case of the complainant that her vehicle was seized illegally by the opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.2 due to which her reputation is lowered in the society. The opposite parties failed to produce any record before this FORUM in support of their claim that the complainant committed default in payment of the installments enabling them to take possession of the vehicle. Hence, the complainant is justified to claim compensation from the opposite parties for illegal seizure of the vehicle.

11. The complainant claimed an order for payment of Rs. 21.790/- towards the estimated cost of damages caused to the vehicle when it was kept in the stock-yard of opposite party no.3. In support of her claim she filed photographs with negatives under Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 showing that many dents and scratches were caused to the vehicle. Infact on perusal of the receipt under Ex.A7 reveals that an amount of Rs.700/- is charged by opposite party no.3 for keeping the vehicle in their stock-yard in the month of June 2007. The complainant got the damages estimated on 20.5.2008 under Ex.A10 i.e. after period of about 10 months. The complainant has not given any reasons as to why she did not make a claim to the opposite parties informing about damages caused to the vehicle immediately after taking delivery of the vehicle from the stock-yard of opposite party no.3. There is no evidence produced by the complainant that she got the repairs done by any work shop and she has not given any explanation for the delay in making such claim. In view of the said reasons, we hold that the complainant is not entitled for the claim regarding estimated damages of Rs.21,790/-.

12. Regarding the claim for compensation for illegal seizure of the vehicle by the opposite parties, the complainant is able to prove her claim. Since the opposite parties seized the vehicle illegally inspite of payment of the installments their acts constitutes deficiency of service. Therefore, in the interest of justice it is just and reasonable to award Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for illegal seizure of the vehicle, Rs.700/- towards refund of the parking charges and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint.

13. In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties No.1 to No.3 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.5,700/- together with Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Shantangouda S/o Sharanappa Navadagi
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

The Br.Manager TATA Motors Finance Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)


ORDER

Speaking through Smt.Meenakshi Kulkarni, Lady Member. This is complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the Opposite Parties (in short the OPs) for directing the OPs to issue No Objection Certificate to his vehicle and pay Rs.50,000=00 towards mental agony etc.


2. The facts of the case in nutshell as is narrated by the complainant are as follows: That the complainant purchased a vehicle with the OPs under the Loan Agreement No.5000139106 under which he was suppose to repay the same by Monthly Installment to the OP. The complainant has paid all the installments till today. Inspite of this, a legal notice was issued to the complainant for dis-honor of cheque.
To this, the complainant issued a legal notice to the OPs and also made the personal discussions with the OPs for harassing him on telephone. The complainant also approached personally to the OPs. But, OPs did not give correct answer and settled the grievance of the complainant.


3. As per the Agreement, the complainant had given all the post dated cheques in advance to the OPs so as to deposit them in-time and collect the monthly installment from the bank. But, the complainant submits that the OPs have presented two/three cheques one at the time to the bank within one month. Due to this, his cheques were dis-honored. This act of the OPs was not according to the terms of the Agreement. Inspite of this, the OPs directly issued a repossession Order of the complainant’s vehicle and immediately the repossession of the vehicle was taken by the OPs. So, the complainant paid a Demand Draft worth Rs.73,900=00 to the OPs.

After receipt of this an assurance of detailed calculation of the payment of installment was given by the OPs to the complainant. But, till today no such calculation report of payment of installment in regard to the Loan has been given by the OPs to the complainant and whenever the complainant has approached the OP an evasive answer was given by the Ops to the complainant. This attitude of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant prays for the No Objection Certificate of his vehicle bearing No. KA-28/M-6038 and Rs.50,000=00 towards mental agony and cost of complaint.


4. After receipt of notice, none of the OPs appeared either though counsel or personally. Hence were placed exparte. The complainant has given affidavit in lieu of evidence. Written Arguments by complainant are filed. Now the following points do arise for our consideration in deciding the case. They are: (i) Whether the complainant is entitled to the prayer as is sought for due to deficiency in service by OPs? (ii) What Order?


5. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder: i) Negative, ii) As per the operative portion of the Order here below.


6. We shall substantiate our findings on the following: R E A S O N S POINT NO.1: The complainant has submitted in all 7 documents in support of his case. They are marked as Exhibit C1 to C7. Exhibit C1 is the R.C. Book of the vehicle bearing No. KA-28-M-6038. This is registered in the name of the complainant i.e. Shantangouda Sharanappa Navadagi and the date on issue of this R.C. Book is 01.10.2007. So there is no dispute about the complainant’s purchase of vehicle bearing No.KA-28-M-6038.


7. The main contention taken by the complainant is that he had submitted the Post dated Cheques well in advance to the OPs and all the cheques were duly signed by the OPs. Inspite of this, the OPs have not issued No Objection Certificate to his vehicle.


8. We perused all the documents which are produced by the complainant himself. This is because, the OPs is placed exparte and as such there are no documents produced by the OPs.


9. The complainant says that he was regular in paying his installments and there are no over-dues. But, Exhibit C3 is a notice issued by the Devya Associates on behalf of the OP NO.1 to the complainant dated: 12.11.2008. In this, it is clearly mentioned a cheque dated: 21.10.2008 bearing No.892076 of Rs.11,800=00 drawn on S.B.I. is dis-honored after his presentation. Exhibit C5 is again a notice issued by OP No.1 to the complainant informing about the legal charges of Rs.100=00 debited his account which will be adjusted in the next E.M.I. due from the complainant. In addition, it can be seen from Exhibit C7 that the 1st installment was due to 25.07.2007 whereas the P.B. produced before this Forum is from 03.10.2007 to 14.07.2008. Hence, verification of the cheque issued dated: 21.10.2008 bearing No.892076 is not possible. Exhibit C7 is a bundle of Calculation Charge presented by the complainant himself. The complainant has just mentioned the Loan Agreement number in his complaint and the same number is in correspondence of the OPs with the complainant. Hence, we believe the said Agreement number quoted in the complaint as is between the complainant and the Ops.

This is an inferred evidence. Because the original Agreement or it’s xerox copy has not been produced before this Forum. In the bunch Calculation Memo filed by the complainant which is Exhibit C7 it can be seen that the first installment fell due on 25.07.2007 and the date of maturity is given as 21.04.2011. The monthly installment was fixed at Rs.11,800=00. This Calculation Memo is dated: 27.12.2008. In this Invoice amount is written as Rs.5,40,425.30. Initial there is Rs.1,10,425.30. So, the Finance amount is Rs.4,30,000=00. The Finance Charge are Rs.1,15,240=00. Correct value of the vehicle is Rs.5,45,240=00. Due till the date is Rs.2,14,840=00, received till the date is Rs.1,56,900=00, overdue interest is Rs.57,940=00 and accrued ODC is Rs.14,708=29.

In support of this summary a detailed Calculation Memo which runs in six pages as calculated by OP No.1 is given by the complainant himself. The complainant in his complaint at Page No.2, in para No.6 as stated that the OP had repossessed the vehicle due to non-payment, so the complainant paid D.D. worth Rs.73,900=00 and immediately repossessed the vehicle. But, he has not produced a single piece of document to show that on which date the vehicle was repossessed (seizer) by the OPs and the any Counter-foil or the supporting document to show that D.D. worth Rs.73,900=00 was paid for repossessed of the vehicle by the complainant. There is no documentary evidence produced by the complainant about the details of D.D. i.e. the Bank on which it was drawn and also about the Repossession Certificate of the vehicle by the OPs etc.

Since OPs are also exparte and there is no document in support of the same produced by the OPs also. The main contention of the complainant is that he has paid all the dues due to the OPs and hence he prayed for No Objection Certificate from the OPs. But, as is seen in the Exhibit C7, the maturity date is given as 21.04.2011. The complaint in our hand is filed on 26th February 2009. Under such circumstances, when the Calculation Memo which is Exhibit C7 shows the over-due installments, the accrued ODC and the due till the date i.e. as on 27.12.2008. It is proved beyond doubt that the over-due (or the Loan amount at) the OPs have been not paid by the complainant to the OPs. If the complainant had paid all the over-due installment to the OP, then Forum fails to understand what protected him to produce the Counter-foil or the supporting documents to show that all the over-due installments along with the accrued interest is paid to the OPs and the Loan is cleared-off. In the absence of such documentary evidence, Forum comes to the conclusion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and the present case in our hand is totally false, vexatious and frivolous and we answer to Point No.1 in Negative.


10. POINT NO.2 : In view of the aforesaid discussion Forum is of the opinion that the present case in our hand false and vexatious. Under such circumstances, under Section 26 of the Act, the complainant is hereby ordered to pay the cost of Rs.2,000=00 to Legal Aid Account. In the light our finding on Point No.1 supra, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R 1) The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. 2) The complainant is hereby ordered to pay Rs.2,000=00 (Rupees two thousand) to the Legal Aid Account within a period of 2 months of passing of this Order and produce the receipt of the same before this Forum

Smt. Neelam Gautam wife of Sh. M.K.Gautam, resident of village Siar, P.O. Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan (H.P.) through her power of attorney Sh. Naresh Gautam S/o Sh. J.C. gautam.

….. Complainant.

Versus


1. TATA Finance Limited, 1st Floor, Gomma Niwas, Lower Chakker, Shimla Through its Manager.

2. Shubham Finance (Franchisee) TATA Finance Limited, VPO Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan (H.P.) Through its Manager

… Opposite Parties
______________________________________________


ORDER:

This order shall dispose of, the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is permanent resident of village Siar, P.O. Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan (H.P.) and is owner in possession of the vehicle/ truck bearing No. HP-14-B-3125. The case of the complainant is brief, is that the complainant had got financed the said vehicle by the Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2 in June, 2005, after fulfilling the necessary requirements as per the demand of the Opposite Party No.2, on the monthly installment of Rs.18,500/-. The complainant was regularly paying the loan installment to the Opposite Party(s) as per statement of account passbook (Annexure –A). On dated 17.07.2008 at about 6:00 PM at Nauni, Bilaspur when the said vehicle of the complainant was on way to Roopnagar, Punjab from Darlaghat for dropping the delivery of clinker, the employees of the Opposite Party(s) along with police illegally stopped the said vehicle and took the possession of the vehicle forcibly and forced the driver of the vehicle to sign certain blank papers and threatened the driver with dire consequences and took away the vehicle along with its documents.

The complainant on the information of the driver lodged FIR regarding the theft of the above vehicle against the Opposite Party(s). After the FIR, the employees of the Opposite Party(s) informed the complainant that the said truck was parked at V.M. Motors Barmana, Bilaspur. The complainant got the vehicle released) the copy of release order dated 18.07.2008, Annexure – E). The complainant was shocked to see the condition of the vehicle as the new tyres of the vehicle were replaced with the old tyres and other tools of the vehicle like Jack Rod, Pana, Tarpal etc. were not there and diesel tank was also empty.

The complainant lodged the complainant with the police station Barmana, Bilaspur on 19.07.2008(Annexure – B) and informed the opposite Party(s) to pay the loss suffered by the complainant to the tune of about Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lacs), but the Opposite Party(s) failed to pay the same. The complainant requested the Opposite Party(s) many times but they did not pay any heed towards the requests of the complainant. Hence, the complainant feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the acts and conducts of the Opposite Party(s), the complainant perforce to file this complaint against the Opposite Party(s).

2. That the notice of this complaint was issued to the Opposite Party(s) through registered AD and case was fixed for appearance of opposite party(s) on 05.12.2008. None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party(s), despite the fact that the Opposite Party No. 1 had duly received registered letter on 12.11.2008 as evident from the acknowledgment received back and opposite party No.2 had refused to accept the registered letter. Hence, Opposite Parties, were proceeded ex-parte.

3. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant at length and have also scanned the entire record of this case.

4. The complainant in support of his claim has placed on record Passbook (Annexure – A), Daily Diary Report of police station Barmana, (Annexure – B), Letter to Shubham Finance Company, Darlaghat (Annexure –D),Release Order (Annexure – E) and statement by way of affidavit of the Power of Attorney of the complainant.

5. As such from the combined and harmonious reading of the aforesaid documents and evidence, which remained unrebutted or un-controverted, it is proved on record that the complainant has suffered loss due to the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, hence have failed to provide proper services to the complainant.

6. Further the Opposite Parties did not put their appearance despite service and their non-appearance also leads us to draw adverse inference against them. As such they are not only guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant, rather are also guilty of indulging in an unfair trade practice.

6. Hence, we allow this complaint, and direct the OPs to provide the requisite documents of the vehicle to the complainant, within a period of one month, after the date of receipt of copy of this order, and the OP on receiving them their settle her claim, within one month thereafter. In addition to this, they are also burdened with damages of Rs.2500/- for rendering deficient service to the complainant, thereby causing mental agony and harassment to him. The litigation cost is quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. These payments shall also be defrayed to the complainant, by the OPs, within the aforesaid period of time.

Sh. Ramesh Chand Negi S/o Sh Rattan Singh Negi,

R/o VPO Shillai, Teh. Shillai,Distt. Sirmour.



… Complainant.

Versus





1. Tata Finance Ltd.

Bezzola Complex, Ist Floor,

VN Purve Marg, Chembur Mumbai-400071,

through its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory.


2. The Branch Manager,

Tata Finance Ltd.

SCO-449-450, Sector-35-C,

Chandigarh.



… Opposite parties.




O R D E R:



This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant alleged that he purchased a vehicle, i.e. Tata Sumo bearing g registration No.HP-17-0300, for a total consideration of Rs.5,88,600/-, out of which a sum of Rs.2,38,600/- paid by him and balance amount was financed by the OP No.1, through the OP No.2. He further alleged that the balance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was to be paid by him, in 36 instalments, on or before 15.09.2007, which he has paid, but the OPs did not issue him no objection certificate Hence, it is averred that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. Notice of this complaint was issued to the OPs, through RAD, who failed to put in appearance before this Forum, hence, was ordered to proceeded against exparte on 11.06.2009 and 10.09.2009, respectively.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

4. The complainant in support of his claim, as asserted in the complaint, has placed reliance on Annexure-A, detailing the fact of payment having been paid to the OPs. In addition to this, the complainant has also sworn an affidavit in support of the complaint. The said fact of complainant having paid the entire payment of the loan instalments to the OPs, has not come to be repulsed on behalf of the OPs, as, the OPs chose not to contest the complaint, hence, the only conclusion, which sprouts from the aforesaid discussion is, that the OPs in not issuing the no objection certificate in favour of the complainant, despite having received the entire loan amount, as advanced by them to the complainant, committed deficiency in service, as also, they indulged in an unfair trade practice.

5. Consequently, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs as under:-

i) That the OPs shall issue no objection certificate in favour of the complainant;



ii) That the OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as compensation to the complainant, for rendering deficient service;



iii) That the OPs shall also, pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant;



iv) That the OPs shall jointly and severally comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



8. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, and since the OPs have not contested the complaint, as such office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the OPs through UPC for compliance forthwith. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Sh. Ramesh Chand Negi S/o Sh Rattan Singh Negi,

R/o VPO Shillai, Teh. Shillai,Distt. Sirmour.



… Complainant.

Versus





1. Tata Finance Ltd.

Bezzola Complex, Ist Floor,

VN Purve Marg, Chembur Mumbai-400071,

through its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory.

2. The Branch Manager,

Tata Finance Ltd.

SCO-449-450, Sector-35-C,

Chandigarh.



… Opposite parties.





O R D E R:




This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant alleged that he purchased a vehicle, i.e. Tata Sumo bearing g registration No.HP-17-0300, for a total consideration of Rs.5,88,600/-, out of which a sum of Rs.2,38,600/- paid by him and balance amount was financed by the OP No.1, through the OP No.2. He further alleged that the balance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was to be paid by him, in 36 instalments, on or before 15.09.2007, which he has paid, but the OPs did not issue him no objection certificate Hence, it is averred that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. Notice of this complaint was issued to the OPs, through RAD, who failed to put in appearance before this Forum, hence, was ordered to proceeded against exparte on 11.06.2009 and 10.09.2009, respectively.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

4. The complainant in support of his claim, as asserted in the complaint, has placed reliance on Annexure-A, detailing the fact of payment having been paid to the OPs. In addition to this, the complainant has also sworn an affidavit in support of the complaint. The said fact of complainant having paid the entire payment of the loan instalments to the OPs, has not come to be repulsed on behalf of the OPs, as, the OPs chose not to contest the complaint, hence, the only conclusion, which sprouts from the aforesaid discussion is, that the OPs in not issuing the no objection certificate in favour of the complainant, despite having received the entire loan amount, as advanced by them to the complainant, committed deficiency in service, as also, they indulged in an unfair trade practice.

5. Consequently, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs as under:-

i) That the OPs shall issue no objection certificate in favour of the complainant;



ii) That the OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as compensation to the complainant, for rendering deficient service;



iii) That the OPs shall also, pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant;



iv) That the OPs shall jointly and severally comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



8. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, and since the OPs have not contested the complaint, as such office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the OPs through UPC for compliance forthwith. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Sh. Ramesh Chand Negi S/o Sh Rattan Singh Negi,

R/o VPO Shillai, Teh. Shillai,Distt. Sirmour.



… Complainant.

Versus





1. Tata Finance Ltd.

Bezzola Complex, Ist Floor,

VN Purve Marg, Chembur Mumbai-400071,

through its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory.

2. The Branch Manager,

Tata Finance Ltd.

SCO-449-450, Sector-35-C,

Chandigarh.



… Opposite parties.

…………………………………………………………………….....






O R D E R:


This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant alleged that he purchased a vehicle, i.e. Tata Sumo bearing g registration No.HP-17-0300, for a total consideration of Rs.5,88,600/-, out of which a sum of Rs.2,38,600/- paid by him and balance amount was financed by the OP No.1, through the OP No.2. He further alleged that the balance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was to be paid by him, in 36 instalments, on or before 15.09.2007, which he has paid, but the OPs did not issue him no objection certificate Hence, it is averred that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. Notice of this complaint was issued to the OPs, through RAD, who failed to put in appearance before this Forum, hence, was ordered to proceeded against exparte on 11.06.2009 and 10.09.2009, respectively.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

4. The complainant in support of his claim, as asserted in the complaint, has placed reliance on Annexure-A, detailing the fact of payment having been paid to the OPs. In addition to this, the complainant has also sworn an affidavit in support of the complaint. The said fact of complainant having paid the entire payment of the loan instalments to the OPs, has not come to be repulsed on behalf of the OPs, as, the OPs chose not to contest the complaint, hence, the only conclusion, which sprouts from the aforesaid discussion is, that the OPs in not issuing the no objection certificate in favour of the complainant, despite having received the entire loan amount, as advanced by them to the complainant, committed deficiency in service, as also, they indulged in an unfair trade practice.

5. Consequently, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs as under:-

i) That the OPs shall issue no objection certificate in favour of the complainant;



ii) That the OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as compensation to the complainant, for rendering deficient service;



iii) That the OPs shall also, pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant;



iv) That the OPs shall jointly and severally comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



8. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, and since the OPs have not contested the complaint, as such office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the OPs through UPC for compliance forthwith. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Sh. Ramesh Chand Negi S/o Sh Rattan Singh Negi,

R/o VPO Shillai, Teh. Shillai,Distt. Sirmour.



… Complainant.

Versus





1. Tata Finance Ltd.

Bezzola Complex, Ist Floor,

VN Purve Marg, Chembur Mumbai-400071,

through its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory.

2. The Branch Manager,

Tata Finance Ltd.

SCO-449-450, Sector-35-C,

Chandigarh.



… Opposite parties.

…………………………………………………………………….....





O R D E R:



This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant alleged that he purchased a vehicle, i.e. Tata Sumo bearing g registration No.HP-17-0300, for a total consideration of Rs.5,88,600/-, out of which a sum of Rs.2,38,600/- paid by him and balance amount was financed by the OP No.1, through the OP No.2. He further alleged that the balance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was to be paid by him, in 36 instalments, on or before 15.09.2007, which he has paid, but the OPs did not issue him no objection certificate Hence, it is averred that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. Notice of this complaint was issued to the OPs, through RAD, who failed to put in appearance before this Forum, hence, was ordered to proceeded against exparte on 11.06.2009 and 10.09.2009, respectively.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

4. The complainant in support of his claim, as asserted in the complaint, has placed reliance on Annexure-A, detailing the fact of payment having been paid to the OPs. In addition to this, the complainant has also sworn an affidavit in support of the complaint. The said fact of complainant having paid the entire payment of the loan instalments to the OPs, has not come to be repulsed on behalf of the OPs, as, the OPs chose not to contest the complaint, hence, the only conclusion, which sprouts from the aforesaid discussion is, that the OPs in not issuing the no objection certificate in favour of the complainant, despite having received the entire loan amount, as advanced by them to the complainant, committed deficiency in service, as also, they indulged in an unfair trade practice.

5. Consequently, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs as under:-

i) That the OPs shall issue no objection certificate in favour of the complainant;



ii) That the OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as compensation to the complainant, for rendering deficient service;



iii) That the OPs shall also, pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant;



iv) That the OPs shall jointly and severally comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



8. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, and since the OPs have not contested the complaint, as such office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the OPs through UPC for compliance forthwith. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Shri Babu Ram Bansal S/O Late Shri Ram Chander Bansal , Proprietor M/S Babu Ram, Rajesh Kumar Bansal, Naya Bazar, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P.



… Complainant.

Versus



1. Tata Finance Limited,

Bezzola Complex, Ist Floor, VN Purav Marg,

Chember Mumbai-400071,

Through its Manager.



2. Tata Motor Finance Limited

S.C.O. 1124-1125, Sctor-22-B,

Chandigarh, through its Manager.



…Opposite Parties.









O R D E R:



This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, he purchased a Maruti Wagon-R vehicle, bearing Engine No.4065305, chassis No.144142, which was financed by him with the OPs in the year 2002.


It is averred that the complainant has paid the entire loan amount to the OPs, as per schedule of payment, but, the OPs failed to issue no objection certificate despite his repeated request, as he intend to sell the aforesaid vehicle, but due to non-issuance of no objection certificate, by the OPs, he suffered a loss of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the complainant avers that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, and, accordingly, the relief to the extent, as detailed in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. Notices of this complaint were issued to the OPs, through registered post, who failed to put in appearance before this Forum despite valid service, hence, vide zimni order dated 11.06.2009, the OPs, were ordered to be proceeded against exparte.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

4. The complainant in support of the allegations as asserted in the complaint, has placed reliance on copy of legal notice dated 01.03.2008 issued to the OPs and the copy of the repayment schedule. In addition to this, the complainant has supported the averment, as asserted in the complaint, by a duly sworn affidavit.


The allegations of the complainant, as asserted in the complaint, which remained un-repulsed and un-benumbed on record, on behalf of the OPs, have to be accorded sanctity. Since, the allegations of the complainant regarding repayment of the entire loan amount to the OPs, has to be believed, to be true and correct, hence, the non-issuance of no objection certificate by the OPs, in favour of the complainant, certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

Kindly arrange to inform me what is the balance amount to be paid by me and I require the certificate stating that the entire loan amount is paid and no loan is balance.

I Paid each EMI. I need NOC.I tried to settle me dues(Only Penalties) in the Secunderabad Branch. I asked waiver and settle the dues with MURALI@9296257783. But there is no use their behavoiur with customer is worst. So please help me regard these and make the call on:07738386834


I Paid each EMI. I need NOC. But they are recommending the penality deues.
So Please log a complaint and settle ASAP.
I tried to settle me dues(Only Penalties) in the Secunderabad Branch. I asked waiver and settle the dues. But there is no use their behavoiur with customer is worst.

So please help me regard these and make the call on:07738386834.

A. NARENDER REDDY . c/o A. RAM REDD As on Date 25-Feb-2011
HNO. 9-7-169/2 EAST MARUTI NAGAR
CHAMPAPET, SAROORNAGAR
R R DISTRICT-500035
Phone : 04024530923
Mobile No : +07738386834
Contract No / Date 0000005000152671 / 09-Jul-2007 Type/Asset CAR / Live
Status Live 25-Feb-2011 Body/Chasis Contract -
Model INDICA DLS TURBO Engine No 475IDT16FSZP90629
Chasis No 600181FSZP92428 Registration No AP11AB9603
Company TATA Motors Finance Ltd Distr. Channel Direct - New
Branch TMFL HYDERABAD BRANC Region SOUTH
Supplier AUTOFIN LTD. Sales Office TMFL HYDERABAD BRANC
DSA CREDIT ZONE IBC TMFL HYDERABAD BRANC
Act. Mgr SEETHA RAMA RAJU MANTENA Area AP-HYDERABAD
Invoice Amt 365171.00 Initial Hire 43171.00
Finance Amt 322000.00 Finance Charges 92950.00
Insurance Prov 0 Option Money 0
Contract Value 414950.00 Over Due Inst 15469.50
Due Till Date 414950.00 Received Till Date 399480.50
Invoice Date 09-Jul-2007 Disbursal Date 09-Jul-2007
First Instl. Date 09-Jul-2007 Maturity Date 11-Jan-2011