Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case was filed by Shri Tuhin Kanti Das S/o. Arun Kanti Das residing at Kantapur, Kuria, P.O.-Gocharan, P.S.-Joynagar, District – North 24 Parganas against Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited with a prayer for a direction upon OP No.1 to issue “no objection certificate” in favour of the complainant on receiving the actual balance loan amount from the complainant a direction upon OP No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- p.m. for the loss suffered by the complainant from February 2017 till the month of June 2017 and onwards till payment of the amount with interest, a direction upon the OPs 1 and 2 to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment and suffering from mental pain and agony, a direction upon Op No.3 to submit the statement of account in respect of the bank account of OP No.2, a direction up OPs 1 and 2 to pay aRs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
OP No.1 is Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited. The office address is 101-105, Shiv Chamber 1st Floor B Wing Sector-II, C B B Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614 and the address of local office is 6, Lyons Range, 1st Floor, Kolkata – 700 001.
OP No.2 is Krishna Texo cam. The address uis 13, Narayan Prosad Babu Lane, 3rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 007.
OP No.3 is ICICI Bank, Baruipur Branch. The address is Baruipur, Dist. – South 24 Parganas.
The complainant, by filing this case states that for the purpose of purchasing a vehicle being Tata LPT 1109 (Truck), he approached the OP No.1 for loan to purchase the same and the OP No.1 agreed to finance for a total sum of Rs.9,20,000/- being the principal amount of Rs.5,20,000/- with interest of Rs.2,91,200/- and insurance of Rs.1,08,800/- which is payable in 46 installments, the first 26 installments @ Rs.27,000/- then 10 installments @ Rs.5,300/- commencing from 2012 to 2016.
The complainant availed of the said loan from OP No.1 through its authorized Revenue sharing party repayment of the said loan would commence from 20.04.2012.
The complainant purchased a Tata LPT 1109 2009 vehicle being No.WB25/D-8194. The complainant started repayment of loan instructed by OP No.2, i.e. the profit sharing party of OP No.1 drawn on Axis Bank, Baruipur Branch and the deposit slip is from ICICI bank. The complainant states that since the end of 2013 the OP No.2 had become very irregular and the complainant facing great troubles to pay his installments by cheque. OP No.2 gave bank account of ICICI Bank for depositing the installments, in OP No.3’s bank account. The complainant deposited money by filling up deposit slips Rs.8,12,700/- to OP No.3. The complainant visited the office of OP No.1 to know the total dues. That the complainant paid Rs.8,12,700/- to the OP No.1. The complainant made the aforementioned payment through its revenue sharing party, OP No.2.
Hence the complainant prays for a direction upon the OP No.1 to issue “no objection certificate” in favour of the complainant in respect of the actual balance of loan account, a direction upon OP No.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- per month for the loss suffered by the complainant from February 2017 till date., a direction upon the OPs 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment and suffering from mental pain and agony a direction upon OP No.3 to submit the statement of accounts in respect of the bank account of OP No.2 being No.129205500101 and a direction upon the OPs 1 and 2 to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
OP No.1, in his written version, states that the complaint is misconceived and not maintainable in law and facts.
That the said complaint is frivolous, misconceived. The complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The complaint dies not fall within the purview of consumer Protection Act.
OP No.1 states that the complainant purchased a Medium Goods Vehicle worth Rs.9,20,000/-. The complainant has given only booking amount and the rest of the amount was provided by OP No.1 through revenue sharing party. Due to non-payment of the loan the company did not issue NOC to the complainant. The entire negotiation took place through OP No.2. Ultimately, OP No.2 has committed breach of contract.
Actually the loan amount was disbursed by the OP No.1 through OP No.2. But OP No.2 did not arrange the EMI amount in the loan account of the complainant. Therefore there was a huge outstanding against the loan account of the complainant. Unless it is cleared, OP No.1 cannot issue NOC in favour the complainant. OP No.1 demanded Rs.16,19,015.
The complainant purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose so it is not maintainable in the present commission. The complainant failed to produce any money receipt.
The OP No.1 admits that all the allegations are baseless and they are liable to be dismissed.
OP No.3 states that the complainant is not a consumer as per C P Act. The complaint is not maintainable against OP No.3. OP No.3 states that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.3. OP No.2 maintains a saving account bearing No.129205500101 with OP No.3.
The complainant does not disclose any cause of action against OP No.3. So OP No.3 is not a necessary party. OP No.1 agreed to give the loan backed by an insurance policy for an aggregate amount of Rs.1,08,000/- OP No.1 took the loan from Krishna Tex O cam. The repayment of loan was supposed to begin on 20.04.2012. The complainant started repayment of loan amount through Axis Bank till March 29, 2016. The complainant paid Rs.8,12,700/-. The complainant failed to ply his vehicle for want of renewed documents from OP No.2. Complainant went to OP No.1 and they demanded Rs.16,19,015/-. OP No.3 has not committed any act resulting to deficiency in service harassment, mental agony caused to the complainant.
OP No.3 is under compulsion to divulge the statement of accounts of OP No.2 maintained by OP No.2 with OP No.3. OP No.3 has to maintain secrecy. The complainant is not a customer of OP No.3.
OP No.3 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
That the case was filed on 06.07.2017. The case was admitted on 19.07.2017. The MA application dated 14.09.2017 was allowed on contest against OPs 1 and 3. OP No.1 will take the responsibility of OP No.2. The complainant is directed to pay Rs.1,07,300/- with easy installment of Rs.5,300/- p.m. soon after the receipt of NOC from OP No.1 and OP No.1 is directed to issue NOC in favour of the complainant for the vehicle WB-5D/194 within one month from the date of this order and the interim order will be in force till the disposal of the case, since it is contested by OP No.1.
Thus both the MA applications are disposed of.
On 02.11.2017 OP No.3 filed W/V. A cost of Rs.500/- was imposed on both OPs 1 and 2 for not filing W/V. On 29.11.2017, OP No.1 filed W/V with cost of aRs.500/-. The Bench also allowed 12 days for compliance of the order of Hon’ble State commission. The OP files a copy of Hon’ble State Commission. On 25.02.2021, the case proceeded ex-parte against OP -2. On 18.03.2021, OP No.1 files questionnaire. On 13.06.2022, OP No.1 files evidence on affidavit. On 24.02.2023 heard argument of Ld. Lawyers of both the parties in full. Accordingly we proceeded for giving judgement.
Points for consideration :-
- Is the complainant, a consumer?
- Are the OPs guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
Point No.1:-
After perusing all the records, it appears that the complainant wanted to buy a truck for self-employment and for maintaining his livelihood. Considering the approach of the complainant, OP No.1 agreed to finance a total sum of Rs.9,20,000/-. The amount was payable in 46 equal installments. The loan amount was to be payable from 20.04.2012 to 20.02.2016. The complainant started repaying the loan as instructed by the OPs 1 and 2. Hence the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence the 1st point is settled in favour of the complainant.
Point No:2 :
The complainant received the loan from OP No.1, through its revenue sharing party, since the end of 2013 the OP No.2 became very irregular in opening its office. The complainant faced troubles in depositing his cheques. The complainant started to disburse loan to the bank account of OP No.2 lying with ICICI Bank being Account No.129205500101, After March 2016 OP No.2 never contacted with the complainant. After 29.03.2016, no instalment was deposited by the complainant. The complainant then contacted with OP No.1. The OP No.1 asked the complainant to wait for its intimation about the mode and time when the payment would be made but OP No.1 did not give any intimation to the complainant in this regard. The OP No.1 did not inform about the remaining amount of instalment. So the complainant could not pay the remaining loan-amount since April, 2016. As a result, the permit of the vehicle and certificate of fitness could not be renewed. Those papers were valid till 2017 and June 2017 respectively. The complainant could not run the vehicle on road. It is due to the deficiency in service and unfair Trade practice of the OPs 1, 2 and 3 the complainant could not run the vehicle on road. OP No.3, ICICI Bank is not in a position to give the statement of account to the complainant in respect of the vehicle. Hence, the 2nd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.
Point No.03 :-
The complainant is desirous to make payment. The complainant wanted to transfer the said vehicle in his name by clearing all the instalments. But the OPs are not helping them by giving information regarding statement of accounts. The complainant was asked to pay Rs.16,19,015/- including late fine and other charges. IT is the policy of the OPs 1 and 2 that they did not give proper statement of account and due to delay, the complainant had to pay a huge amount for which the complainant is not ready. He spends time in mental agony and pain. Due to inconvenience of the OPs, the complainant suffers. OPs claim a huge amount for harassing the complainant. The complainant could not run the vehicle since February, 2017. He is facing a loss of Rs.20,000/- per month. Hence the third point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs 1 and 3 and ex-parte against the OP No.2 with cost of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand).
OP No.1is directed to issue “No objection certificate” in favour of the complainant upon receiving the actual remaining balance amount from the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
That the OPs 1 and 2 jointly and / or severally liable and are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for monetary loss, harassment and suffering from mental pain and agony and pain within 45 days from the date of this order.
That the OP No.3 is directed to submit the statement of account in respect of the bank account of OP No.2 being the Account No.129205500101 for proper clarification within 45 days from the date of this order.
That the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied with within the stipulated period of 45 days.
Ld. Member Sri Partha Kumar Basu joined on 11.04.2023 and he did not take part in hearing the argument of the case. As such he did not sign the judgement and order passed on this day.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost.
That the final order will be available in the following website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sangita Paul
Member
