West Bengal

Murshidabad

CC/2/2022

FIROZ ALAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Authority Concern 2. Goutam Datta - Opp.Party(s)

Shafiul Alam

08 Aug 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Berhampore, Murshidabad.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/2/2022
( Date of Filing : 20 Jan 2022 )
 
1. FIROZ ALAM
S/O Hidayet Ali vill. Belgram paschimpara P.o Panchthupi, P.s-Burwan, Dist.-Murshidabad Pin-742161
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. 1. Authority Concern 2. Goutam Datta
1.HDB Financial Corporation RAdhika,Law Garden Road, Nabarangpur,Ahamedabad, Gujrat-380009 2. Agent, HDB Financial Service Ltd. Ground Floor, National Highway, Rampurhat, Near HP Petrol Pump, Dist.- Birbhum, WB Pin-731224.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. AJAY KUMAR DAS PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. NITYANANDA ROY MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 08 Aug 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Order No. 10.

08.08.2023

Today is fixed for S/R of OP No.2. But no step is taken by the Complainant several times. The record shows that no step was taken by the Complainant on 18.08.22, 09.12.22, 21.03.23, 30.05.23, 03.08.23 and today i.e. on  08.08.23.The point to be noted is that the Complainant was directed to take steps for issuance of notice upon the OP No.2. But he has not done so. Such being the position the Complaint is dismissed against OP No.2.

 The case of the Complainant as per materials on record is that the Complainant had intended to purchase a construction equipment, namely, Tata Hitachi Hydraulic Excavator. The  OP No. 2, agent of the OP No.1 contacted with the Complainant and the OP No.2 convinced him for purchasing the above equipment by arranging finance. His proposal was to purchase the equipment and the loan amount will be Rs. 32,00,000/- @ 4 to 5% interest and the down payment will be 15% and duration of loan will be 5 years i.e. 60 monthly instalment. And the EMI will be Rs. 80,500/- per month. He promised that the EMI will be started after five months from the date of delivery of the said machine. The total amount will remain under Suraksha Vidhi. But actually the loan was sanctioned by the OP No.1 amounting to Rs. 37,43,199/- @ 10% interest  in lieu of Rs. 32,00,000/- and @ 4 to 5% interest and also the EMI was Rs. 1,05,000/- per month in lieu of Rs. 80,500/- and the duration of loan claimed was 47 monthly instalment without informing the Complainant. The OP No.2 advised the Complainant to pay Rs. 16,60,000/- as down payment and subsequently the Complainant paid the same. The Complainant regularly paid the EMI as fixed earlier but during lock down period the business had been hampered heavily and he was facing a great financial problem but after repeated demand from the end of OPs the Complainant lastly paid Rs. 1,06,000/- on 20.12.21 as EMI. OPs forced the Complainant to sign on some blank and english typed paper. The Complainant had approached the OP No.1 to consider the unbonafied claim but in vain. 

OP No.1 is contesting the case by filing W/V. According to him both the parties agreed and signed the agreement and after signing the agreement, this OP No.1 financed Rs. 37,43,199/- for purchasing the construction equipment. It is also admitted by the Complainant in his complaint. It is also admitted position that the Complainant paid Rs. 1,06,000/- on 20.12.21 as EMI.

It is stated by the Complainant in his complaint that OP No.2, an agent of the OP No.1 contracted with the Complainant and the OP No.2 convinced him for purchasing the above equipment by arranging finance. But it is a matter of regret that the Complaint is dismissed against the OP No.2 in the first portion of this order. So the allegation against OP No.1 is not believable.

From the facts and circumstances of this case it is found that there was a loan agreement in between the Complainant and OP No.2. The said loan agreement has not been filed by the Complainant.

It is required to be mentioned that the OP No.1 has stated in his written version that the Complaint is not maintainable as the loan agreement contains the clause for Arbitration.

The point to be noted is that we have already mentioned that the Complainant has not been taking steps for long period. It is the clear indication that the Complainant is not at all interested in the instant case suggesting that the Complainant has no merit in this case. Further more, there is no relevant documents particularly the loan agreement is not available in the case record.

       In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed on merit.

Hence, it is

 

ORDERED

that the instant case No. CC/2/2022 is  dismissed on merit against the OPs without any order as to costs.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

 

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

 

President

 

 

Member                                                   Member                                                 President     

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. AJAY KUMAR DAS]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. NITYANANDA ROY]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.