DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 76 OF 2015
Mohammad Jamal ( 50 Years),
S/O- Late Mohammad Rajak,
RO: Belpahar, Near Post Office,
PO/ PS: Belpahar Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha………….…………Complainant.
Versus
- Adhikari Banchhor, Agent, Tata Motor Finance Ltd.,
S/o: Sauki Banchhor,
At/ PO: Baghmunda, PS: Lakhanpur,
Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.
- Branch Manager,
Tata Motor Finance Ltd.,
C/O: Jalan Motors, At: Byepass Road, Jharsuguda,
PO/PS/ Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.
- Branch Manager,
Tata Motor Finance Ltd., Sambalpur Branch,
At: Balaji Towers, GM College Road, Sambalpur,
PO/PS/ Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha……………….….….…..….…...Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Abdul Zalil, Adv. & Associates.
For the Opp. Party Shri N.K. Mishra, Adv. & Associates.
Date of Order: 03.08.2016
Present
1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.
2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Member.
Shri S. L. Behera, President: - The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant avail loan facility from the O.Ps. and purchased one Tata ACE Magic bearing Regn. No.OD-23A-6275. At the time of financing of said vehicle i.e. dtd. 125.03.2014 the O.P.No.1 received an amount of Rs.17,000/- on behalf of O.P.No.2 & 3 from the complainant towards preparing all RTO documents i.e. R.C Book, Fitness Certificate and permit etc. The O.Ps. submitted the RC Book and fitness certificate of the vehicle o to the complainant and suggested him to that very soon the permit would be delivered again the complainant was agreed by keeping faith
and trust. The complainant requested the O.Ps. several times to give him the necessary permit document but all the times the O.Ps have avoided him giving false promises and assurance but till date the O.Ps. failed to supply the necessary documents , hence this case.
The O.Ps. appeared through their counsel after being noticed. The O.P.No.1 appeared but failed to filed written version and stand ex-parte. The O.P.No.3 appeared and filed written version and submitted that the complainant has taken loan of Rs.3,55,000/- only which was to be paid in 48 EMIs. started from 15.04.2014 to 15.03.2018. The O.P.No.3 denied that the O.P.No.1 is not the employee / agent of O.P.No.3 and there is also no existence of O.P.No.2 as there is no such branch office and denied of any receipt of Rs.17,000/- only from the complainant towards paper works and prayed for dismissal of case.
Heard and perused the case record along with materials available. The complainant was financed a Tata ACE Magic bearing Regn. No.OD-23A-6275 by the O.Ps for an amount of Rs.3,55,000/- only which was to be refunded in 48 numbers of monthly installments started from 15.04.2014 to 15.03.2018. But here question arises that at the time of financing of vehicle the O.P.No.1 had taken Rs.17,000/- only from the complainant for supplying of necessary documents for the vehicle where the O.ps. provided only temporary permit and not the regular permit. The O.P.No.3 denied that the O.P.No.1 is not either the employee or agent of O.P.No.3. The complainant alleges on O.P.No.1 on receiving of Rs.17,000/- only towards supplying of documents where the O.P.No.1 kept silent in this case. Thus it reveals that the O.P.No.1 has nothing to say otherwise he could have denied on receiving of Rs.17,000/- only.
In the above observation we are in considered opinion to allow the complaint case with direction to the O.P.No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.17,000/- ( Rupees seventeen thousand) only to the complainant with interest @ 10 % per annum. Further the O.P.No.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand) only towards harassment, mental agony including litigation costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today the 03rd day of Aug’ 2016 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.
I Agree.
S.K.Ojha, Member S. L. Behera, President
Dictated and corrected by me
S. L. Behera, President.
