DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT
CC- 575/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
07.09.2016 16.09.2016 27.01.2020
Complainant :- 1. Rahish Daptari,
Vill.- Bishnupur, P.O.- Kachua
Swarupnagar, P.S. – Basirhat,
Pin - 743293
=Vs=
Opposite Parties :-
- The Manager of Bike Zone, Berachampa (Debalaya) Chowmatha, Taki Road, 24 Pgs. (N), Pin – 743424.
- The Director of TVS Motor Company Ltd. P.B. No. – 4, Harita, Hosur - 635109, Tamilnadu, India.
- TVS Credit Service Ltd.
Jayalakshmi Estates, 29, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600006.
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Karna Prasad Burman………....President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw ………………….Member.
Judgment
Cause of grievance is rooted at alleged excess amount of ₹7200/- being paid by the buyer of a motor bike herein the complainant who had prayed for redressal of his grievance U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 .
The complaint, in brief, that the complainant purchased a motor bike TVS Apache RR (O) having Engine No. 0E44F2823116 & Chasis No. ND634KE46F2H86193 from the OP No. 01 on 17/12/2015 at a consideration amount of ₹88,000/- (on road price). He made down-payment of ₹ 34,300/- and the rest amount of ₹ 53,700/- was to be paid but the Finance company i.e. OP No. 03 has shown the loan amount of ₹ 60,900/- instead of ₹ 53,700/- i.e. ₹ 7,200/- has excessively been collected from the complainant. Accordingly the complainant had to pay excess EMI ₹2,537/-. Under the circumstances the complainant prayed for refund of his excess payment made alongwith a compensation of ₹10,000/- and ₹ 2,000/- as litigation cost.
The OP No. 01 in his averment had denied all the charges but he has not submitted any evidence in support of his averment that no excess amount has been received by his end from the complainant.
Contd. to......Page No. 02
Page No. 02
CC- 575/2016
The OP No. 02 in his averment has denied all the charges in the complaint filed by the complainant. He has categorically pointed out that he is the manufacturer of the said motor bike which is sold by authorised dealer or retailer. In the instant case the said OP No. 01 is not an authorised dealer of the OP No. 02. Moreover, no direct transaction regarding money matters can be done by him, only any manufacturing defects are dealt directly with the customer. So, the charge against him is totally false and he is a misjoinder. He has also averred that being only a manufacturer he does not assist customers in availing financial assistance for purchasing of vehicles. So, the allegation at para 2, 3 and 4 of the complaint stands dismissed. Notwithstanding that as a reputed manufacturing company the OP No. 02 had made an enquiry into the complaint and it is found that the financing has been made by OP No. 03 on the basis of agreement between the complainant and the OP No. 01 in January 2016. The loan was sanctioned ₹ 60,900/- of which ₹ 2,700/- as procession fees, ₹ 900/- as Insurance charges, ₹ 850/- for stamp duty and Rs. 200/- for ECS charges has been deducted and the rest amount of ₹ 56,250/- has been paid to the OP No. 01 by the OP No. 03. He has also averred more that it was true that the complainant had paid an initial amount of ₹ 34,300/- to the OP No. 01 of which ₹ 31,500/- has been shown as down-payment towards the purchase of the vehicle. The rest amount is paid for number plate, hypothecation, smart card etc. He has also filed all his evidences in support of his averment (kept in this record).
The OP No. 03 also in their averment had denied all the allegations and with documents he has averred that the total amount of loan sanctioned and the EMI for 36 installments in detail have been conceded by the complainant through an agreement on 21/01/2016 being No. K03054TW0057235 and accordingly repayment is to be made by the complainant to the OP No. 03. On affidavit it has been stated that the instant complainant has defaulted in repayment of loan by not making EMIs as usual. Nothing was hidden to the instant complainant and so this complaint against him is to be dismissed.
Considering the above pleadings as well as nature and character of this case the following points are necessarily come out for consideration to reach just decision of the case:-
- Is the Complainant a consumers U/S 2(1)(d)(i) of the consumer Protection Act,1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
- Have the OPs any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- To what other relief/reliefs the Complainant is entitled?
Decision with Reason
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as nature and character of this case all the points are interlinked to each other and as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
The complainant as a purchaser to the OP No. 01 is a consumer as defined U/s 2(1)(d)(i) of C.P. Act, 1986. As per record filed by the complainant the territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum both are not barred.
Contd. to….Page No.03
Page No. 03
CC- 575/2016
The above discussion reveals that the complainant purchased the said two wheeler at a consideration price of ₹ 88,000/- on road inclusive of all taxes. The complainant has made no whisper regarding other accessories for the vehicle for which ₹2,800/- has been deducted from the initial payment of ₹ 34,300/- to the OP No. 01 by him. He has also hidden the fact of non-payment of EMIs to the OP No. 03. This has been cleared by the statement on affidavit of evidence filed by the OP No. 03. It seems to us that the complainant has knowingly charged against OP No. 02 regarding financing of the vehicle. In such cases the complainant should liable to be fined, but his wrongful act is excused as the OP No. 01 has not properly submitted their evidences against the complainant.
Hence, for ends of justice:
It is;
Ordered
that the instant case being No. C.C. 575/2016 is hereby dismissed on contest but without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by
Member
Member President
