Fact of the case in short is that the O.P. no.1 is the authorized Dealer of Tata Motors Ltd., O.P. no.2 is the Manufacturer of vehicle and O.P. no.3 is non-banking financial Institution who running financial assistance in different areas.

This Complainant met in the office of O.P. no.1 for the purpose of purchasing four-wheeler i.e. one Tata Nano Car and O.P. no.1 agreed to make arrangement loan.

On 12-07-2012 this Complainant paid cash as regards down payment and the rest amount would be arranged from the O.P. no.3.

Accordingly, one Tata Nano Engine No.273MPFI04DXYK33563, Chassis no.MAT612227CKD33516, Type Body - Saloon was delivered to this Complainant and one loan agreement was executed in between the Complainant and O.P. no.3 bearing no.2119017 dated 12-07-2012; but no papers in this regard was delivered to this Complainant either by O.P. no.1 or O.P. no.3.  O.P. no.3 also assured that all registration formalities will be completed in collaboration with O.P. no.3 and thereafter, original registration certificate of the vehicle would be made over to him along with insurance policy

Thereafter, O.P. no.1 delivered an insurance policy dated 14-08-2012 in respect of the vehicle involved in this case to Complainant.

This Complainant made several payments of installments to O.P. no.3.  Thereafter, this Complainant made several request to O.P. no.1 & 3 to provide registration certificate and other connected documents of the said vehicle to him; but all are in vein.  So, this Complainant has filed this complaint and has made prayer to direct O.P. no.1 to replace said car and also to handover the registration certificate of the said car and also made further prayer to make direction upon O.P. no.1 & 3 to waive interest and also made further prayer to pass award upon the upon the O.P. to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and also to pass direction upon O.P. to Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost and other relieves.

This case is being contested by Tata Motors Ltd. O.P. no.2 by filing W.V. denying all allegations as made in the petition of complaint stating inter alia that there is no allegation against O.P. no.2 has been proved and no case has been made out against this O.P. no.2.

So, this Complainant is liable to be dismissed against this O.P.

                                                                     Points for Determination.

1)  Whether there was any unfair and disputed trade practice made by the O.Ps.

2)  Whether the Complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.

                                                                         Decision with reasons.

In this case Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued inter alia that this Complainant purchased a Nano Car from O.P. no.1 who made arrangement for getting loan from O.P. no.3 and there was an agreement in between Complainant and O.P. no.3 on 12-07-2012 in this regard and said car is under the possession of the Complainant ; but this O.P. no.3 has not taken any endeavor / steps to get the said vehicle registered and also fails to deliver the registration certificate of the said vehicle in the name of this Complainant.  So, this Complainant has filed this Complainant.

On the other hand Ld. Advocate for the O.P. no.2 Tata Motors Ltd. submitted before us inter alia that he is mere manufacturer of the vehicle in question.  So, he has no role in the matter of taking step to get the impugned vehicle registered.  So, this complaint is liable to be dismissed against him / O.P. no.2.

We have carefully heard the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.

Perused the petition of complaint and the affidavit evidence submitted by Asoke Dutta Complainant.  It appears to us that this O.P. made proposal to purchase vehicle from O.P. no.1 who is dealer of the vehicle and it also reveals from the materials on record as well as affidavit evidence that O.P. no.3 gave financial assistance / loan to this Complainant to purchase the vehicle.

So, it appears to us that it is undisputed that this Complainant purchased impugned vehicle from the shop of O.P. no.1 on the basis of financial assistance / loan given by O.P. no.3 to this Complainant.  It is also undisputed that one written agreement was executed in between the Complainant and O.P. no.3.  The said agreement made on 12-07-2012 by Complainant and O.P. no.3 has not been produced in this case.  So, this Forum is in the dark about the terms & conditions of the said agreement.

It also revels from petition of written complaint that this Complainant paid Rs.37,900/- as EMI of the said loan and he paid total EMI against the said loan was Rs.10,1,700/-.  Annexure – A is the photocopy of insurance policy.  It reveals from Annexure – A that the vehicle in question was insured in the United India Insurance Company Ltd. for the period 14-08-2012 to mid-night on 13-08-2013 and name of the Complainant has been incorporated / mentioned in this policy as insured and name of the O.P. no.3 has been mentioned here as financier and type of agreement was mentioned as hypothecation.

So, we find that this Complainant purchased the vehicle in question after taking loan from O.P. no.3 and a hypothecation agreement was made in between Complainant and O.P. no.3.  No documents have been filed to show that the EMI as per terms & condition of the agreement have been paid by the Complainant till date and Complainant did act as per terms & conditions of agreement.

Anyway, it is proved that the impugned vehicle is under the possession of Complainant and the said vehicle is hypothecated to the O.P. no.3 / financier.

This Forum is in the dark about the terms & conditions of the agreement for non-production of agreement.

Anyway, we find that if the terms & conditions of the agreement is abided by this Complainant then O.P. no.3 financier is bound to take step / measure to get the impugned vehicle registered as per provision of the Motor Vehicle Act before the concerned authority.

We also find that there was no role of O.P. no.1 & 2 in the matter of giving loan to this Complainant and they have also no role in the matter of getting impugned vehicle in question registered under the provision of Motor Vehicle Act. 

So, we find no cause of action against O.P. no.1 & 2.  So, this case is liable to be dismissed against O.P. no.1 & 2.

We find no reason to dis-believe the affidavit evidence of the Complainant as contents of evidence is remained unchallenged; but burden of proof lies upon the Complainant the he has paid amount of all EMIs and according to terms & conditions dated 12-07-2012. So, we hold that Complainant has also been able to prove that he purchased the case vehicle after taken loan from O.P. no.3.  He has also been able to prove that O.P. no.3 has not taken any endeavor / measure to get the vehicle in question registered and to deliver certificate of registration of vehicle to Complainant ; but Complainant could not be able to prove that he has paid entire EMI of loan to O.P. no.3 and there was involvement / role of O.P. no.1 & 2 in the matter of case loan transaction of case vehicle and they have any involvement in case dispute.  So, case is liable to be dismissed against O.P. no.1 & 2.

In view of the circumstances we find that if the O.P. no.3 is asked to take necessary steps for getting the impugned vehicle registered as per provision of the Motor Vehicle Act; and to make over certificate of registration to Complainant subject to fulfillment of terms & conditions of the agreement dated 12-07-2012 and in the matter of payment of all previous and current amount of EMI till date then none would be prejudiced.

In the result, this Complaint succeeds in part.

Hence, it is

                                                                          Ordered

That the Complaint No.03 of 2015 be and same is hereby allowed exparte against O.P. no.3 M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and dismissed on contest against O.P. no.2 Tata Motors Ltd. and dismissed exparte against O.P. no.1 B.D. Motors Ltd.; but without cost.

O.P. no.3 is hereby directed to take measure / necessary steps to get the case Nano Vehicle / Car Engine No.273MPFI04DXYK33563, Chassis no.MAT612227CKD33516, Type Body – Saloon registered as per provision of the Motor Vehicle Act with concerned registering authority in the name of the Complainant and to make over certificate of registration to Complainant ; subject to condition that the Complainant shall pay entire previous and current amount of EMI of loan and to make it up to date, if due, as per terms & conditions of agreement dated 12-07-2012 to O.P. no.3 M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

O.P. no.3 M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra is directed to submit entire previous or current account of EMI of the loan if due as per terms and conditions to Complainant by thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgement.

Complainant is hereby directed to pay or to deposit the entire amount of EMIs falls due if any as per agreement dated 12-07-2012 to the O.P. no.3 by sixty (60) days from the date of copy of receipt of Judgement.

O.P. is further directed to take measure /step to get the case vehicle / car registered in the name of Complainant as per provision of Motor Vehicle Act and to hand over certificate of registration to Complainant by sixty (60) days from the date of payment of amount of entire EMI up to date as per accounts given by O.P. no.3 to Complainant.  If O.P. no.3 fails to comply with the direction with the stipulated period made above after payment / deposit of entire amounts of loan as stated above then Complainant is at liberty to take proceed with due course of law.  Complainant is also directed to render adequate assistance to O.P. no.3 like signature in the prescribed Forum related to Registration of vehicle or his personal appearance in M.V. Registration Office, etc., if required.

Prayer for other relief made by the Complainant is hereby rejected.

Thus the complaint is hereby disposed of.

Let plain copy of this Judgement be given to the parties free of cost.