Orissa

Kendujhar

11/2014

Abdul Hannan - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Cholamandalam Invest & Fincorp Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Pitambar Mahanta

12 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 11 OF 2014

Abdul Hannan, aged about 45 years,

S/o: Abdul Manan,

At: Ward No.1, Joda Municipality,

P.O/P.S: Joda, Dist: Kendujhar                   ……..…………………Complainant

                             Vrs.

1. Cholamandalam Invest & Fincorp. Ltd.

At/P.O/P.S: Barbil, Dis: Keonjhar

2. Tarini Motors,

Near Kendujhargarh Railway Station,

At/P.O: Sankarpur, P.S: Sadar,

Dist: Keonjhar                                            ………………………….Op. Parties

 

PRESENT: SHRI A.K. PUROHIT, PRESIDENT

                SRI S.C. SAHOO, MEMBER

Advocate for the Complainant: Sri Pitambar Mahanta

Advocate for the OP1: Sri A.K. Pattnaik & R.R. Rana

Advocate for the OP2: Sri C. Hota & Associates

__________________________________________________________________ 

Date of Hearing 30.03.2016                                              Date of Order 12.05.2016

Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member: The brief facts of the case are that the complainant for his self employment and for livelihood of his family purchased a MN Tourister Bus bearing No. OR-09-Q-7119 by financing from the financer i.e. OP1 who financed a sum of Rs.10,31,150/- to the complainant/ Owner cum Driver on the said purpose on dt.31.7.2012. The said lone was to be repaid by the complainant in 47 equal monthly installments basis starting from 01.9.12 to 01.7.16. The alleged vehicle was purchased from OP2 the Dealer on receipt of Rs.13,94,898/- i.e. the full consideration amount and OP2 delivered the alleged Bus to the complainant on 06.8.2012 having Engine No. KEC4F 19326 & Chassis No. MESGH 2 KEHC 3F 76473 & Serial No. C3F16473 and the alleged Bus was Registered at R.T.O, Keonjhar on dt.08.8.2012 being insured with the Insurance company i.e. IFCO- TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. through the OP2 and the complainant operated the alleged Bus on route after getting road permit and go on repayment of installments. But after few months the alleged Bus started major mechanical trouble and as such the complainant took the vehicle to the nearest garage who detected the defects in Gearbox which was required over oiling and the body of the Bus was defective and to this the matter of defect was intimated to the OPs but the OPs does not respond to the complain of defects and for which the complainant could be able to repair the vehicle by spending Rs.80,000/- in cash and operated the alleged Bus. After 2 months for which due to financial stringency the complainant with utmost sincerity & seriousness could be able to repay the installment on 31.1.14. But the OP1 without any intimation to the complainant took away the vehicle on dt.06.2.2014 from the house of the complainant while the vehicle was standing in front of the house without giving any seizure list and the OP1 assessed some unjust and illegal amount which were exaggerated and ridiculous charges of Rs.60,365/- reflected in the A/C statement and due to foul play and the vehicle with inherent defects and the OP1 without any information surreptously took away the alleged vehicle causes financial loss and mental agony, hence this case.

              After service of notice to OPs, the OPs have appeared through their engaged counsel and filed their written version respectively. The OP1 has stated in his version that the present case is not maintainable in the eyes of law & fact and also stated that finance does not render any service within the meaning of C.P. Act in existence of a hire purchase agreement and in existence of an arbitration clause, no dispute with regards to finance assets cannot be decided in any court other than the arbitrator and as on date of alleged seizure of the vehicle a sum of Rs.2,58,415/- was the due upon the complainant/ vehicle and the complainant was a chronic defaulter, the OP1 was compelled to seize the financial assets on 18.2.14 as per law and in terms of conditions in agreement and the present case is having no merit hence liable to be dismissed. The complainant requested the financer to avail the loan of alleged Bus and the complainant is a Bus operator having fish whole selling business for 15 years and his annual turnover was 15 lakhs and the complainant is having alternately source of income and as such not a consumer as per C.P. Act. regarding defects in the alleged vehicle the OP1 played no role as the financer/ OP is not the manufacturer of the alleged vehicle and the complainant has filed this case in order to grab public money with a vague allegations without any material particulars like assessment of extra charges by OP1, seizure of financed assets on 06.2.14, receipt of substantial amount as 60,365/- etc. are imaginary and concocted rather to patch up complainants faults being a chronic defaulter and to take undue advantage hence prayed to dismiss with exemplary cost.

        The OP2 in his written version stated that the present proceeding is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to file this case and also the proceeding is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and the manufacturer of the alleged vehicle is a necessary party, who will speak about the manufacturing defects and manufacturer is only liable for warranty, guaranty etc. and the complainant is not a consumer under this OP2 and the vehicle has not been insured through this OP2 nor the complainant has not intimated to this OP2 regarding mechanical defect of the vehicle during the service period and defects as enshrined in the complaint was misuse of the Gearbox in rough road and similarly over hauling also caused by rough driving on the rough road and the OP2 is a Authorized Service Station, under gone service of the alleged vehicle when the complainant came for service hence OP2 has no liability at any point of time in absence of arraying the manufacturer. Hence, the present case has no merit and needs to be dismissed.   

         Heard, the learned counsels engaged by OP1 & OP2 and gone through the materials available in record in absence of the complainant and taking into consideration of the complaint of the complainant. It is not disputed by the OPs regarding finance of the alleged vehicle and delivery of the vehicle. The only dispute/ allegation by the complainant as enshrined in the complaint is whether genuine or not.

       In this context, the learned counsel for the OP1 submitted that the allegations as raised by the complainant is having no valid ground and the complainant was a chronic defaulter defaulted a sum of Rs.2,88,865/- as on dt.20.2.2014 prior to seizure on 18.2.14 not on 06.2.14 as said by the complainant as revealed in the A/C statement filed by the complainant. Further, the counsel for OP1 submitted that before seizure of the alleged vehicle the OP1 has sent a final call letter to the consumer on dt.07.2.14 sent by Regd. post for early payment of dues of Rs.2,58,415/- and also seizure was intimated to Barbil Police on dt.18.2.14 and accordingly inventory was prepared and also sent a presale letter of dt.21.2.14 whether in an overdue installments of Rs.2,29,500/- and financial charges of Rs.65,181/- was the dues payable by the complainant and without any material particulars like assessment extra charges by OP1, seizure of financed assets and receipt of substantial amount of Rs.60,365/- etc. are vague allegation raised by complainant and imaginary in order to patch up his faults.      

       On the other hand the learned counsel for OP2 submitted that the complainant has not intimated to OP2 any manufacturing defect/ mechanical defect during service period and the proceeding is bad for non-joinder of necessary party since manufacturer was not arrayed as necessary party.

        On perusal of certified copy of agreement, statement of A/C and final call letter, pre seizure intimation to Police, Inventory list and presale letter filed by the OP1 reveals that the financed assets was lawfully possessed by OP1 and in this instant case the sole allegation of the complainant is about inherent mechanical defect of financed vehicle but the manufacturer was not impleaded as party so also the OP2 raised this in his version nor intimated the inherent defect to the OP2.

     With these pleadings, arguments and materials available in record the OPs are no way deficient in rendering service to the complainant nor adopted unfair trade practice and the OPs are not liable for any compensation for mental agony/ financial loss.

HENCE ORDER

The complaint petition of the complainant is dismissed having no merit without cost and compensation.

                        Accordingly the Case is disposed of.

 

                                                                                                                                    I agree                                                                                   

     (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                                            (Sri A.K. Purohit)                 

           Member                                                                                                         President                               

  DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                           DCDRF, Keonjhar

 

                                                                               Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                                        (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                                                          

                                                                              Member, DCDRF Keonjhar