Karnataka

Bijapur

CC/28/2015

Sri Mallappa S/o Sangappa Nuchchi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief administrative officer tata motors finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri H.S.Salagar

25 Oct 2016

ORDER

                

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VIJAYAPUR

 

DATE OF FILING 07^th  DAY OF MARCH, 2015

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 28/2015

 

DATED THIS THE 25^th  DAY OF OCTOBER 2016   

 

01) Sri S.H. Hosalli                            -          President.     

                  B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

 

02) Smt.G.S. Kalyani                         -        Lady Member.

                 B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Sri.Mallappa S/o Sangappa Nuchchi, Age: 38 Years, Occ: Advocate, R/o: H.No.196, Near Shivoor Kirana Stores, A/P: Buranapur, Tq: & Dist. Vijayapur.               (Rep. by Sri.H.S. Salagar, Adv.)

 

- V/S –

 

OPPOSITE PARTY  -

The Chief Administrative Officer, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Think Techno Campus Building, A, 2nd Floor Of Pokharan Road-2, Thane-400607, Registered Office, Nanavati Mahalaya, 3rd Floor 18, Homi  Mody Street, Mumbai – 400001.                   (Rep. by Sri.S.S. Bashetti, Adv.)

O R D E R

 

Speaking through Smt. G.S. Kalyani, Lady Member.s

 

 

1. This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section

12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Party (in short the “Op”) directing him to pay refund the amount of Rs.1,01,600/- to the complainant with 18% interest and pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,00,000/- towards litigation and loss etc.,   

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

          It is contended that, the complainant is an advocate and he has purchased one four wheeler i.e. Tata Nano CXBX 3 from the OP who was the authorized four wheeler dealer of the Tata Motors Finance Ltd., for which the OP financed under the hire purchase agreement. The agreement constituted in the month of June 2011 and on 25.06.2011 the vehicle handed over to the complainant. Accordingly, the OP advanced loan amount of Rs.1,81,000/- to the complainant and the complainant went on paying monthly installments regularly under the loan account tenure of loan to be remitted in 45 installments and the complainant has paid as under;

Date	Amount in Rs.	Date	Amount in Rs.	Date	Amount in Rs.
09.08.11	10,720/-	29.09.11	10,720/-	22.02.11	10,720/-
08.03.12	16,000/-	02.06.12	16,000/-	29.07.12	16,000/-
29.12.12	10,720/-	16.02.13	10,720/-

 

In which the complainant totally paid Rs.1,01,600/- and installment period is up to 15.12.2014.

It is contended that, the complainant using the said vehicle from the month of August – 2011 while moving on the vehicle, the said vehicle suddenly stopped and also starting problem. The complainant has complaint about the OP and complainant left the vehicle for service and not rectified by the Op’s. Further the complainant contended that, meanwhile OP seized the vehicle illegally for not paid the monthly installments for the month of February – 2013 without prior notice till this day. The OP not handed the vehicle to the complainant even though complaint made several efforts to pay balance installments. The OP not heed the request this amounts to illegal act and complainant go issued legal notice to OP’s they not handed only the vehicle. Hence, the deficiency of service and un-trade practice on the part of Op.  Hence this complaint.

3.      After receiving the notice, the opposite party has appeared through his counsels and not filed any written version. Even though the sufficient time has been given. Hence, the case is posted for complainant affidavit. The complainant has filed his affidavit and written argument and posted the case for OP argument but the OP has not filed any W.A. or argues the matter. Hence it is taken for order. The complainant produced in all 11 documents the same are marked as Ex.Co.No.1 to 11.

4.      After hearing the arguments and perusing the documents the following points do arise for our consideration in deciding the case are;    

1. Whether the complaint is Maintainable under the provisions  of Sec. 13 of the C.P. Act?

 

2.   What order?

Answer to the above Points:-

1.  Negative
2.   As per final orders.

 

R E A S O N S :-

 

 5.     Point.No.1: We going through the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has filed this complaint U/s. 13 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, Sec. 13 of the Consumer Protection Act mentions the procedure of the District Forum has to fallow in the case; the complainant has filed his complaint under Sec. 12 of C.P. Act. Hence, this complainant is not filed complaint under proper provision of the C.P. Act. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable under the Provision of C.P. Act. Hence, we answer to the point No.1 in Negative. Moreover, the OP is also not residing within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.

6.      Point No.2: In the result of Point No.1 we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. Complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties    

  immediately.

 

            (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 25^th day of October 2016).

 

 

Sri. S. H. Hosalli,       President.

Smt. G. S. Kalyani,     Lady Member.