| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 31 of 2014 Sri Kabi Sabdakar, …………………………………..…….. Complainant. -V/S- 1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., A company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Cos. Act,1956 having its office at buildingA,2nd Floor, Lodha,1-Think Techno Campus, opp. Poharan-2, Thane.(West) 400607. O.P No.1. 2. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Branch office at N.S. Avenue, Hailakandi Road, P.O. Rangirkkhari, P.S.Silchar Dist. Cachar, Assam. O.P No.2. 3. Johnson Automobiles, Sonai Road, P.O. Likn Road, P.S. Silchar Dist. Cachar, Assam. O.P No.3. Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared :- Sri Raju Deb, Advocate for the complainant. Sri Mithu Deb, Advocate for the O.P.No.1 & 2. Sri Suddhasatta Choudhury Advocate for O.P.No.3 Date of Evidence……………………….. 28-05-2015 Date of written argument……………… 31-05-2017, 05-08-2017 Date of argument………………………. 05-09-2017 Date of judgment………………………. 14-12-2017 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sri Bishnu Debnath, - The Complainant Sri Kabi Sabdakar purchased a vehicle Tata Nano CX on 03-01-2011 from Johnson Automobiles, Sonai Road, Silchar with financial assistant Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Silchar Branch, N.S. Avenue, Hailakandi Road. Price of the vehicle was Rs.1,52,000/-. He paid down payment of Rs.17,742/- to M/S Johnson Automobiles. He took delivery of the vehicle on 03-01-2011. Subsequently he paid EMI starting from February,2011 to April,2012 of total Rs.89,942/- and obtain monthly instalment receipt. But when he went to pay installment for the month of May,2012 the authorize official of the Johnson Automobiles, Sonai Road did not receive the installment rather stated that Net is not working and come after 3(three) months. Accordingly, he paid 3(three) months installment of Rs.16,650/- on 05-07-2012 in case but the authorize official did not issue any receipt rather stated that Net is not functioning for which receipt could not be issued. However, he stated that the official of the Johnson Automobiles assured him that no additional interest will be charged. So, the complainant may come in the month of December,2012 and from the month of December,2012 the complainant may deposit regular installment and may receive the money receipt. But very surprisingly the Johnson Automobiles Ltd. with conspiracy send a letter to him on 31-10-2012 that he is defaulter on payment of loan installment for which the said vehicle has been seized from the garage of M/S Johnson Automobiles, Sonai Road, Silchar which was kept for repairing. Now, the Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Sonai Road, and its head office at Thane (West) Maharastra issued another notice vide No. LSA/3566 dated 27-08-2013 to say that the complainant has repayment of loan liability is Rs.98,045/- and asked to repay within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the said notice. It is also informed that the said vehicle has been sold by the Financer on auction of Rs.15,000/- only. To settle the dispute the Financer appointed an Arbitrator most illegally and the said Arbitrator called the complainant to appear in the arbitration proceeding either personally or through advocate. However, the complainant submitted a written prayer before Arbitrator to dismiss the arbitration petition.
- With the above grievance, the instant case has been brought before this District Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with prayer to pass award to hand over the vehicle in good condition, direction to issue receipt of three months installment of Rs. 16,650/- award compensation of Rs.50,000/- and other relief such a cost of proceeding, compensation for misbehaviors etc.
- The O.P No.1 and 2 in their joint W/S stated inter-alia that all the allegations are false. They stated that the complainant is conic defaulter and not intending to make payment of outstanding due to answering O.Ps. It is also stated that outstanding as on 26-12-2014 is Rs.68,644 and total installment received till the above date is Rs.1,24,146/-. They also stated that the complainant failed to make regular payment of monthly EMI hence committed default and accordingly the vehicle was repossessed by invoking clause 18.1 of the loan agreement.
- Hence, as per the O.P No.1 and 2 herein above, there is no cause of action against them to get any relief. However, the O.P No.3 i.e. Johnson Automobiles Ltd., Sonai Road, in its W/S stated inter-alia that no vehicle was seized from the custody of Johnson Automobiles.
- During hearing, the complainant deposed on oath and exhibited as many as 18 number of documents vehicle delivery challan, Cash Report of down payment of Rs.17,742/- some money report of EMI of Car loan etc. The complainant also examined Sri Pinku Sabdakar as P.W-2 as supporting witness. The Johnson Automobiles Ltd. also examined Sri Sabyasachi Dutta as D.W-1 and exhibited 4(four) documents including copy of loan agreement vide No.5000658901 dated 03-01-2011 and power of attorney in favour of Sabyasachi Dutta. The O.P No.3 i.e. Tata Motors Ltd., N.S. Avenue, Silchar examined Sri Channa Shekhar Dutta as D.W-2. The said witness also exhibited 3(three) number of documents including Job Card for service of the said vehicle and service history.
- After closing evidence, the complainant submitted written argument. The Tata Motors Finance Ltd. also submitted written argument jointly for O.P No.1 and 2 and the O.P No.3 submitted its written argument separately. Heard oral argument of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and the Ld. Advocate of the Johnson Automobiles, Sonai Road. None has appeared on behalf of O.P No.1 and 2 for oral argument.
- From the complaint, W/S and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant brought the complaint with intention to get back his vehicle and also want a declaration from this Forum that seizure of the vehicle by the O.P No.1 and 2 was illegal and also want relief for award of compensation for mental harassment and other consequence relief including a declaration that the complainant paid installment for 3(three) months of Rs.16,650/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred fifty) only.
- In this case from evidence on record, we find a disputed fact regarding payment of regular installment of EMI for Car loan. The O.P denied the payment of Rs.16,650/- for 3(three) months as alleged and also denied the alleged fact of giving advice by the official of the O.P No.2 to the complainant to come in the month of December,2012 to pay regular installment of EMI.
- Hence, the complainant deposed that he went to the office of O.P No.2 to make payment of installment for the month of May,2012 and subsequently went in the month of July,2012 and paid cash of Rs.16,650/- as 3(three) instalment of EMI for month of May, June and July. In his evidence he also added that his friend was with him at that time of payment of installment of Rs.16,650/-. The P.W-2 Sri Pinak Sabdakar. He deposed that he accompanied the complainant in both the occasion and supported the fact stated by the complainant that official of the O.P No.2 received cash Rs.16,650/- as 3(three) months installment but did not issue receipt on the pretention that the ‘Net’ was not functioning etc. Of course, the complainant deposed that he could not collect receipt for payment of said installment and subsequently did not make payment of installment for the month of August onward for assurance of the official of the O.P. He stated the official of the O.P who received the cash of Rs.16.650/- in the month of July advised him to come in the month of December,2012 to pay the installment regularly.
- But the O.P denied the above fact. Thus, it is necessary to know who was that official. The complainant did not attempt to collect name of that official who received the cash. That is why, in this case when we are adopting summary procedure, without support of relevant material facts regarding identification of the said official, unable to conclude in favour of the complainant that he really attempted to make payment of regular installment of EMI of Car loan.
- However, in this case, it is admitted fact that the vehicle has been repossessed by the O.P No.1 and 2 on the plea the complainant was defaulter for payment of regular installment. When we have come to a conclusion regarding defaulter in payment of regular instalment of EMI of Car loan referred in earlier paragraph, it is also concluded that with a justified ground the vehicle has been repossessed by O.P No.1 and 2.
- But in the Consumer Forum we are unable to direct the O.P to hand over the vehicle to the complainant because the vehicle was repossessed for default as per agreement of loan vide Ext-‘B’ and to adjudicate the said dispute is summary trial is not sufficient to collect sufficient material.
- As per Consumer Protection Act a ‘Complaint’ is section 2(1)(c) does not cover the aforesaid dispute regarding re-possessing the vehicle from default of payment of regular EMI for Car loan and Section 14(I) of the Consumer Protection Act does not cover to direct the O.P to hand over the vehicle to the complainant which has been re-possessed on the ground of defaulter from EMI.
- Therefore in view of Section 2(1)(c) the complainant is not to be treated as consumer to decide the above dispute. Of course, the complainant has remedy in the Civil Court subject to law of limitation.
- As the fact of payment of EMI of Car loan for the month of May,2012 onward is not established in view of opinion hereinabove of this District Forum. So, the complainant is not entitled to other relief/reliefs as prayed for or any other relief as per law and equity. Therefore, this case is dismissed on contest without cost of the proceeding. Supply free certified copy of the judgment to the parties. Given under hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 14th day of December, 2017
| |
