IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/50/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
23.03.2018 29.03.2018 03.11.2022
Complainant: Bagbul Islam,
S/O Samsul Isalm,
Balumati Hindu Para,
P.O. Tenkaraipur,
P.S.Islampur,
Murshidabad,
Pin 742304.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Prabin Sharma, Chief Manager,
Srei Equipment Finance Ltd,
Plot No. Y-10, Block EP,
Sector V, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata- 700 091.
2. Rabindra Nath Sharma
Repossession Unit Of Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.,
Plot No. Y-10, Block EP,
Sector V, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata- 700 091.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Pran Krishna Saha
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : (i) Subhanjan Sengupta,
(ii) Saptarshi Datta
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Bagbul Islam (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Prabin Sharma, Chief Manager, Srei Equipment Finance Ltd and Ors. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a secondhand JCB Heavy Vehicle from O.P.s by taking loan and for the purpose of transferring the name and for insurance purpose the complainant paid Rs. 350000/- and for mechanical expense for garage Rs. 42,000/- and an advanced of Rs. 100000/- towards repayment of loan totaling Rs. 4,92,000/-. The O.P.s assured that he will transfer the name from previous owner and will make registration and insurance otherwise he will pay the amount with compensation. But on 28.05.2016 the O.P.s by providing inventory list repossessed the said vehicle having Model No. 770 BhL-2013, Chasis No. T13A13555, Engine No. 4H3203 11320028. The complainant claimed from the O.P.s of Rs. 4,92,000/- along with compensation but the O.P.s paid no heed. The Complainant again 22.11.2017 through registered post sent an application to the O.P.s for settlement of his claim but all went in vain. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission for appropriate relief.
Defence Case
After due service of the notice the O.P.s appeared before this Commission and filed Written Version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable as the complainant used the vehicle for commercial purpose. So, the case is liable to be dismissed against the O.P.s.
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
As per petition of complaint the complainant purchased secondhand JCB Machine taking loan from the O.P.s and paid Rs. 3,50000/- for insurance and transferring of name from the previous owner and Rs. 42,000/- for the purpose of garage and Rs. 1,00,000/- as advanced for repayment of loan, totaling Rs. 4,92,000/- but the O.P.s failed to do so. Rather on 28.05.2016 by providing inventory list the O.P.s repossessed the said vehicle having Model No. 770 BhL-2013, Chasis No. T13A13555, Engine No. 4H3203 11320028.
The O.P.s filed Written Version along with non-maintainability petition where it has been stated that the complainant has used the said vehicle for commercial purpose so the case is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us we find that complainant has not filed any documents in support of his case fromwhere it will be evident that the complainant has paid to the O.P.s an amount of Rs. 3,50000/- for insurance and transferring of name from the previous owner and Rs. 42,000/- for the purpose of garage and Rs. 1,00,000/- as advanced for repayment of loan, totaling Rs. 4,92,000/-.
In spite of the repeated order dated 06.05.2022 and 19.07.2022 none appeared on behalf of the parties and it was ordered by this Commission that both the parties must be present on the date fixed otherwise the case will be disposed of on merit. As the complainant has not filed any documents and was absent on the date fixed for hearing and this commission is also in dark regarding the terms and conditions for transferring of the vehicle so we have no other option but to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case for want of relevant documents. As such the case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 23.03.2018 and admitted on 29.03.2018. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is dismisse
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/50/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s but 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
