Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No.1722  of  2010

1- Tata Motors Finance Limited

    IInd Floor, C-33

    Ramkrishan Metal Works

    I.T.I. Near Maruti Service Centre

    Road No. 28, Waghle Estate, Thane

    Maharashtra.

2- Tata Motors Finance Limited

     372, Civil Lines, Gwalior Road

     Janki Complex, Jhansi.                                                                   ….Appellants.

Versus

1-Aacheylal Ahirwar

   R/o Digrakalan

   Pargana Walavehet

   District Lalitpur

2-R. S. Motors Pvt. Ltd.

   Near Reliance Petrol Pump

   Jhansi Road, Lalitpur.                                                                     .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Rajesh Chadha, Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondent.

Date    1.9.2021

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Rajendra  Singh,  Member- This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment/order dated 08.04.2010 , passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum, Lalitpur in complaint is number 121/2009, Achhelel Ahirwar  Vs. RR Motors & Ors.

The brief facts of appeal are dead, that the respondent no 1 /complainant filed a complaint with allegation that he purchased a Tata New Magic commercial vehicle from respondent no 2 and sought financial assistance from the appellant. Complainant could not get the vehicle papers from respondent no 2 and therefore he could not ply his vehicle. Meanwhile the complainant was receiving letters from the appellants company for depositing the instalments of the loan and the complainant alleged that he could not pay the loan due to non-supply of vehicle papers from respondent no 2 and therefore he could not ply his vehicle.

:2:

Complainant filed the said complaint and as no notices of the said case was sent to or served on the appellants therefore he could not put his version before the learned Consumer Forum and the said case was decided ex-parte against him. Aggrieved by the judgment he preferred the present appeal.

The main grounds of appeal are that the impugned judgment is erroneous, factually wrong, legally perverse, arbitrary and is based on presumptions and assumptions and not based on merits. The said judgment is ex parte, nonspeaking, without jurisdiction and against the principle of natural justice. The Learned district forum never served the free copy of the judgment to the appellant. The appellant received the notice dated 26 July 2010 of the execution case 35/2010 on 17 August 2010 and then he came to know about the said case. The Learned District Forum wrongly presumed the service of notice on the appellant. The Learned Forum had no jurisdiction to try the case. The complainant sought the financial assistance by way of loan to the tune of Rs.329,980/– for purchase of the said vehicle and this loan was payable in 35 monthly instalments of Rs.9428/– but the complainant paid only Rs.8000/– on 20 July 2009. Several notices have been sent to him.

The alleged complaint was mainly against the respondent no 2 who did not deliver the vehicle papers to the complainant. The alleged complaint against appellant was bad and there was the defect of mis-joinder of parties. The present appellant has wrongly been impleaded as a party. The entire allegations of raised in the complaint are wholly flimsy and imaginary and are denied, save and except financial assistance. Hence it is humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Commission may graciously be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.

We have heard the learned counsel of the appellant Mr. Rajesh Chaddha. None appeared from the respondent’s side though the service on the respondent has already presumed sufficient wide order dated 31 October 2017.We have peruse. D the impugned judgment and pleadings and documents on record.

Now we perused the impugned judgment. The learned Forum has written that the respondent did not file any written statement after proper service of the summons. So if the notice of the execution has been served on the appellant/respondent how can it be presumed that notices were not served on him.

:3:

It clearly establishes the fact that the finding of the learned Forum regarding service of summons on the respondent is according to law. Now we have seen the operative portion of the impugned judgment. The Learned Forum has written that opposing party’s number 1 & 2 are directed to provide all the documents to the complainant and Rs.1 lakh as compensation and ₹ 1000/– as cost of the suit within a month. The opposite party no 3 was directed not to seize the vehicle of the complainant illegally and also not to threaten the complainant.

The complainant has stated in his complaint that opposing party number 1 , RS Motors (Pvt.) Ltd., Jhansi Road, Lalitpur is the authorised dealer of respondent number  2 , TMFL Jhansi and opposing party no 3 is the financer of opposite parties no.1 & 2. The complainant purchased a vehicle from opposite party no 1 after depositing Rs.50,000/– in cash on 7 January 2009 and a receipt has been issued showing the price of the vehicle as Rs.296,776/– and it is stated that the vehicle shall be delivered when financed by opposite party no.3. So it is clear that opposite party no.3 is the financer of the vehicle and he has provided loan to the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle. He has a right to recover his loan from the complainant but in a legal way and not by threatening or by forcefully seizing the said vehicle. So one thing is clear that it is the opposite party no 1 & 2 who are responsible for not delivering the papers of the vehicle to the complainant. In the impugned judgment opposite party number one and two have been directed to provide all the documents of the vehicle to the complainant and to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.1000 as cost of the suit. Opposite party no 3 has been directed not to seize the vehicle except the procedure established by law. So there is no ground to interfere in the judgment of the Learned District Forum. Appellant has stated that TM FL is Tata Motors Finance Ltd which is opposite party no 2 . So opposite party no 2 & 3 are the same person. Therefore as far as the judgment is related to provide the documents of the vehicle and to pay compensation, it should have been directed against the opposite party no 1 only. So we are of the view that impugned judgment needs amendment and opposite party no.2 should not be made liable either to deliver the documents or to pay compensation to the complainant. Opposite party number 2 & 3 should have been barred for seizing the vehicle except the procedure established by law and they are also be restrained to use threatening practices against the complainant. Thus the appeal is liable to be allowed to this extent only.

:4:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed partially and the impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2010 is amended to the extent that the opposite party no 2 is deleted from the first line of the impugned judgment and it is arrayed in the fifth line with opposite party no 3 .

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.

   ( RAJENDRA SINGH )                         ( SUSHIL KUMAR )

  PRESIDING MEMBER                                MEMBER

Judgment dated/typed/signed and pronounced in the open court today by us.

    ( RAJENDRA SINGH )                          ( SUSHIL KUMAR )

    PRESIDING MEMBER                                  MEMBER

Jafri PA II

C-3