Date of filing:- 24/09/2016.
Date of Order:-26/02/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2016.
Alok Kumar Agrawal S/o. late Durga Prasad Agrawal, Occupation – Business, R/o- & P.o. Nuapali, P.s./Tahasil/Dist-Bargarh. ... ..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-V e r s u s-
The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investments & Finance Ltd. (Chola), Bargarh Branch At-Khajurtikra In front of Fire Brigade Office, Old N.H.6, Bargarh, P.oPs/Tahssil/Dist- Bargarh.
The Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Ltd.(Chola) Dare House, 1st Floor No.2, N.S.C.Bose Road Parrya, Chenni-600001 … …….Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.K.Satpathy, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- Sri A.K.Sahoo, Advocate with others Advoctes.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.26/02/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Fact of the Case ;-
The case of the Complainant is that, he has obtained a loan from the Opposite Parties through it’s Bargarh Branch for an amount of Rs.18,00,000/-(Rupees eighteen lakhs) only to purchase a vehicle of model TATA LPT 3118/TC bearing registered No-OD-17-D-5151 on Dt-25.07.2014 the said amount was disbursed to him with a condition for the repayment of the same in Installment @ Rs.61,000/-(Rupees sixty one thousand) only per month commencing the same from Dt.01.08.2014 to 01.06.2017 in 35(thirty five) installments.
Accordingly the Complainant has been paying the said installment amount in the account of the Opposite Party through his Banker, and as usual the same was deposited for the month of January 2016 also, but the Opposite Party did not update the payment status and shown as unpaid, as such to avoid any complicacy the Complainant deposited the amount in cash and that the case of the Complainant is that the Cheque bearing No-2066138 which he has deposited for the particular purpose was shown by the Opposite Parties to have bounced but later on it was found to be cleared on Dt-14.01.2016 and the Opposite Parties have taken away the same amount also in addition to the cash deposite and also have collected the incidental charges for the same, which as per the Complainant amounts to deficiencies in service and unfair trade practice for such action of the Opposite Parties, has to suffer a lot physically mentally and financially too, and thus has claimed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only consequent upon the non response of the Opposite Parties to the Pleader Notice served upon them, the case has been filed to redress his dispute. And in substantiating his such claim has relied upon some following documents.
The copy of the pleader Notice.
The financial statement of the repayment status .
On perusal of the complaint, the documents to that effect and on hearing the counsel for him the case was admitted and notice was served upon the Opposite Parties in response to which both of them appeared and filed their version, which are all in Evasive to the case of the Complainant with some other ground as that there is no deficiencies in rendering service or any case of unfair trade practice is their part.
In furtherance to their case the Opposite Parties have contended that since the Loan was disbursed to the Complainant in entering into an agreement by both the Parties and as per the said agreement the Complainant has agreed to the condition that if any dispute arises then the same would be referred to the Arbitrator subject to the Jurisdiction of Chennai hence the present case is not maintainable in the Forum as it does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and is liable to be dismissed. Further more the vehicle was being used for the commercial purpose as such is not maintainable in the Forum. And in support of their case have embodied with the references of Annexture-C & D and the bank statement with regard to the payment made by the Complainant.
Having gone through the Complaint it’s supporting documents and the version and the relating documents and on hearing the counsels for the respective parties the following points have come up for proper adjudication of the case.
1. Whether The Complainant is a consumer and whether the case is maintainable in the forum in view of the alleged arbitration Clause ?
2. Whether there has been deficiencies of service and un-fair trade practice is Committed on the part of the Opposite Parties ?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any Compensation as has sought for by him ?
While dealing with the point as to whether the Complainant is a consumer or not, on perusal of the record vividly it came to our notice that the Complainant is admittedly has been financed by the Opposite Parties having being entered in to an agreement by both the Parties and it is also not disputed that the Complainant has been repaying the loan amount with interest to the Opposite Parties, further it has also came to our observation that the allegation of the Opposite Parties that the said vehicle was being used for the commercial purpose has not been substantiated by any authentic documents, so merely saying that the same being used for commercial purpose nor the deed of the covenant has been filed and hence is not tenable in the eye of law and accordingly our views expressed in favor of the complainant, And with regard to the averments made by the Opposite Parties that in view of the arbitration clause of the agreement that the forum lacks jurisdiction is not tenable in view of the Provision provided U/s 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 wherein it has been clearly stated that it is in addition to any other provision of law for the time being in force but not in derogation of any such law, hence in our logistic view the case in hand is very much maintainable in the Forum in the present form, hence it is answered accordingly in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly while dealing with the question as to whether there has been any deficiencies in rendering service or committing unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, delving deep in to the materials available in the record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant has been financed by the Opposite Parties and also there is no dispute from either side regarding the repayment till the month of January-2016, but in the month of January-2016 it is contended that in the complaint that he has made payment of the same through his agent bank but the Opposite Parties have denied to have received the same as the cheque issued by him has bounced, for which he has to make cash payment of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only & Rs. 31,000/-(Rupees thirty one thousand)only to avoid future complicacy, And again the Opposite Parties have received the amount of Rs.61,000/-(Rupees sixty one thousand)only to which he should have returned to which the Opposite Parties have denied which as per the Complainant is unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. And to which while we examined the statements of the repayment filed by the Opposite Parties on being asked by the Complainant through the Forum it has been clearly mentioned in the statements it’self that on Dt.14.01.2016. the Opposite Parties have received an amount of Rs, 61,000/-(Rupees sixty one thousand)only and again he has received Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only on Dt 20.01.2016. and Rs. 31,000/-(Rupees thirty one thousand)only on Dt.27.01.2016 in cash, which clearly establishes the case of the Complainant and knowing fully well about the same the denial of the same by the Opposite Parties is a clear case of unfair practice and deficiencies of service on their part, hence our views is in assertive to the case of the Complainant.
Thirdly while dealing with the question as to whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief claimed for, as we have already expressed in our foregoing paragraphs in details of the case and have opined in favor of the Complainant, now it is obvious to allow the case of the Complainant against the Opposite Parties and answer in his favor and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to the claim of the Complainant. Hence the Order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand )only with interest @ 6% (six percent) per annum from the date of filing of this case to till the date of order as compensation to the Complainant against his mental and monetary harassment and also further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand)only as litigation expenses to the Complainant within thirty days of receipt of the order in default of which the amount would carry an interest @ 12%(twelve percent) per annum till actual realization of the same.
Accordingly the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties, and the same being pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e. on Dt.26/02/2018 is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t I agree
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (w)
