Orissa

Kendujhar

70/2014

Smt. Jamuna Mahanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Authorized Dealer of ACE Auto Care Pvt. Ltd. Keonjhar Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Jatindra Kumar Behera

20 Jan 2016

ORDER

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

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 70 OF 2014

Smt. Jamuna Mahanta, aged about 42 years,

W/o- Sri Lalitendu Mahanta,

Village- L.I.C Colony, Mining Road,

Post- Kendujhargarh, P.S- Town,

Dist: Kendujhar, Odisha                                       ………………..Complainant

                           Vrs.

1. The Authorized Dealer of AEC Auto Cares Pvt. Ltd.

Keonjhar Branch, Village- Near R.T.O Office

 (In the house of Mr. Pratap Jagdev),

Post- Kendujhargarh, P.S- Town,

Dist: Kendujhar, Odisha - 758001

Represented through its sales executive Sri Asutosh Pati

2. The Manager/ Authorized Dealer AEC Auto Cares Pvt. Ltd.

N.H-5,  Bhanapur, Dist- Cuttack- 753011

3. The Branch Manager, H.D.FC Bank Ltd.

Keonjhar Branch, Village- Jagannathpur,

Post- Kendujhargarh, P.S- Town,

Dist: Kendujhar, Odisha - 758001                        ………………..Op. Parties

                                 

PRESENT- Sri Akshaya Kumar Purohit, PRESIDENT

                    Smt. B. Giri, MEMBER (W)

                    Sri S.C. Sahoo, MEMBER

Advocate for the complainant- Sri Jatindra Ku. Behera

Advocate for Op1 & Op2- Sri Harihar Kar & Associates

Advocate for Op3- Sri Manoj Ku. Panda & Associates

___________________________________________________________________________

Date of Hearing - 05.01.2016                                                        Date of Order - 20.01.2016

___________________________________________________________________________                                                                

Sri A.K. Purohit, President  

1. It appears from the facts of the case that, the complainant wants to purchase a Tata Zest XT RT 90 vehicle from the O.P. No. 1 & 2 with the financial assistance of the O.P.No.3 and accordingly Paid Rs. 5000/- on dated 6.10.2014 and Rs. 1, 72,945/- on dated 30.10.2014 to the O.P. No.2 through O.P.No.1 towards advance booking of the vehicle. After observing all formalities the O.P.No.2 sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.4,67,638/- in favor of the complainant which was directly paid by the O.P.3 to the O.P.2 for delivery of the said vehicle to the complainant. Since the said vehicle was not delivered to the complainant within time by the O.P.1 & 2, the complainant refused to receive the same in a later date. The complainant alleges that since the agreement between the parties have already been cancelled the O.Ps. have not refunded the amount which she has paid to them and the O.P.No. 3 has wrongly deducted Rs. 10168/- towards EMI. Hence the Complaint.

2. The O.Ps. have contested the case by filing their written version. The O.P. No. 1 & 2 filed their version jointly. The O.P. No. 3 has not filed his version within the time allowed by the Forum and file at a later stage. However the same has been considered for the just decision of the case. According to O.P.1 & 2, after completing all legal necessities and formalities the vehicle was ready for delivery since 1.11.2014 but the complainant refused to receive the vehicle and hence the O.P.1 & 2 have cancelled the transactions with the complainant and refunded all the amounts received from the complainant with interest to her bank account through NEFT transfer. Hence the O.P.No.1 & 2 claims no deficiency in service on their part. According to the O.P.No.3 after closure of the loan account of the complainant an amount of Rs.10,168/- was charged towards foreclose charges as per the guideline framed by the Reserve Bank of India, and hence there is no deficiency in service on his part. The O.P.No.3 denied to have received any amount towards EMI from the loan account of the complainant.

3. Heard both the parties. Perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had paid Rs.5000/- vide receipt No.23607 dated 6.10.14 and Rs.172945/- vide receipt No.23608 dated 30.10.14. It is also an admitted fact that the agreement between the parties has been cancelled and the loan account of the complainant was closed. With these admitted fact the point for consideration is whether the aforesaid amount has already been refunded by the O.P. 1 & 2 to the complainant and whether any amount has been received by the O.P. 3 towards EMI after cancellation of the agreement.

4. In support of their case the O.P.1 & 2 have filed the Xerox copy of the ledger account prepared by them in the name of the complainant showing the refund of the complainant’s deposit amount. Neither parties has produced the terms and condition of the agreement. The O.P. 1 & 2 has not produced the original ledger account prepared by them during course of business. There is no clear evidence available on record to show that the amount paid by the complainant is refundable and the same was already refunded by the O.P. 1 & 2 to the complainant. However during course of argument the learned advocate for the complainant submitted that the amount which was paid by the complainant has already been refunded by the O.P. 1 & 2 to the bank account of the complainant. Therefore this issue has already been settled by the parties.

5. Now coming to the next point, the complainant has not produced any evidence relating to deduction of EMI and from which date the payment of EMI begins. Since the agreement has been canceled by the parties there is no requirement of payment of EMI by the complainant. The terms and conditions of the agreement is not available on record. The complainant has not produce any evidence by way of affidavit or otherwise to show that the amount which was deducted by the O.P.No.3 is liable to be refunded to the complainant. Therefore in the absence of any believable evidence it cannot be said that the O.P. 3 has deducted the EMI amount.

6. Since the agreement between the parties has already been cancelled the O.Ps. are under obligation to returned the documents produced by the complainant before them during the time of execution of the agreement. The O.P. No. 3 is also duty bound to returned the blank cheques which were produced by the complainant at the time of sanctioned of the loan, if asked for by the complainant.

            With the aforesaid observation the case of the complainant is dismissed without cost.

 

        I agree                                         I agree

 (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                           (Smt. B. Giri)                              (Sri A.K. Purohit)

        Member                                   Member (W)                                    President                                     

DCDRF, KEONJHAR              DCDRF, KEONJHAR                  DCDRF, KEONJHAR

 

                                                                               Dictated & Corrected by me                    

                                                                                         (Sri A.K. Purohit)                                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT, DCDRF KEONJHAR