FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Smt. SAHANA AHMED BASU, Member,

The case of the Complainant is that, the complainant has taken a commercial vehicle from the OP3 which was purchased by the OP3 trough loan issued by the OPs 1 and 2. On 25.11.2019 the OP1 has seized the said vehicle and grabbed all original document. Thereafter the Complainant contacted the OPs 1 & 2 and came to know that the OP3 has not been paid the defaulted loan amounting to Rs.2,60,000/-  to the OP1. Then the Complainant decided to purchase the said vehicle under his name and for which he paid Rs.2,60,000/- to the OP3. Accordingly, Op3 paid the defaulted amount to the Ops 1 & 2 by dated 24.12.2019 amounting to Rs.49,000/- , on 27.12.2019 amounting to Rs.2,01,000/- and on 29.12.2019 amounting to Rs.10,000/-. Then the Complainant got NOC from the OPs 1 which was issued on 24.01.2020 by the OP2. But when the Complainant went to receive the said vehicle it was found by him that all accessories and parts were changed and some of were not found. Four side new tyres were changed and fixed old tyers, new seat covers were changed to an old one, backlight, front or headlight, horn and tape all new accessories were changed to an old accessories. Original Amaron battery of the said Vehicle was changed and fix an old one with different battery. And the engine was also converted to an old engine for which the said vehicle was not getting started. The Complainant has informed the incident to the local Police station, namely Kasba Police Station and also forwarded the Copy to DC South Suburban of Police. But no such replies come from. Having no other alternative the Complainant has compelled to knock the door of this Commission.

Upon service of notice the Ops 1 & 2 contested the case by filing WV with relevant documents and denying all the allegations made out in the Complain Petition. The case of the OPs 1 & 2 is that since the OP3 failed to repay the loan as pre agreed terms and conditions the account was declared as N.P.A. (Non-Performing Assets) and Possession of the said vehicle was taken as per provision of the law by the OP1. Thereafter the OP1 hired a Company, namely Aaditya Leafin Private Limited who as a recovery agent to take physical possession of the vehicle and keep in its safe custody till the dispute is solved. The OP1 received a mail from the recovery agent on 29.08.2019 wit assurance that on receiving certain data (i) a notice of 15 days will be issued to borrower by registered post, (ii) pre seizure police intimation will be dispatched by the registered post to SHO & District SP, (iii)vehicle will be seized, (iv) vehicle will be parked at stockyard. From the E-mail dated 29.08.2019 it is clear that the vehicle has been kept in the custody of the recovery agent company and the same thing is within the knowledge of the complainant as he received several letters from the recovery agent and OPs 1 & 2 are in no way connected in keeping the custody of the said vehicle. Therefore the Complainant should have made recovery agent a party.OPs 1 & 2 handed over the responsibility of seizing the said vehicle to the recovery agent company and therefore there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs 1 & 2. Vide letter dated OPs 1 & 2 requested the recovery agent company to hand over the vehicle to the Complainant and as such liability of the OPs 1 & 2 has been discharged. Moreover, OPs 1 & 2 have issued a letter dated 17.02.2020 to the recovery agent company to look into the points made by the complainant through letter dated 27.01.2020 and to do the needful. So the OPs 1 & 2 have taken initiative and cooperated with the Complainant even beyond its capacity as it was not the duty of them to take care of the seized car once it is handed over to the recovery agent.

Despite service of notice OP3 has failed to file WV within stipulated period and the case do proceed ex parte against them vide order dated 06/07/2022.

In support of his case the Complainant has tendered evidence supported by an affidavit and also relied upon documents annexed with the complaint petition. The OPs 1& 2 Failed to file questionnaire and E/chief within stipulated period. We have heard argument on merit and have also perused the record.

Admittedly OP3 has purchased a Maruti Swift Dzire Tour, Reg No. WB 05 3812, Eng No. D13A5221553, Chasis No. MA3FSEIS0518753 by taking loan from the OP1 and fact also remains that OP3 failed to repay the said loan of Rs.2,60,000/- which was due then as per the agreed terms and conditions for which the account was declared as N.P.A. and the possession of the said vehicle was taken as per the provision of the law by the OPs 1 & 2. It is also true that as the OP1 cannot take physical possession of the vehicles on its own therefore they hired Aaditya Leafin Privte Limited as a recovery agent to take the physical possession of the said vehicle for keeping the same in safe custody till the dispute is solved. On perusal of the documents on record it is found that the said loan is repaid by the OP3 to the OP1 on 24.12.2018 amounting to Rs.49,000/,on 27.12.2018 amounting to Rs.2,01,000/- and on 29.12.2019 amounting to Rs.10,000/- and OP3 requested the OP2 to handover the said seized vehicle to his authorized person, namely ‘SUSHANTA GHOSHAL’ who is the Complainant in this instant case, vide letter dated 24.01.2020.Material documents filed by the parties reveal that accordingly OP2 advised the recovery agent company “to handover the seized vehicle to Sri Sushanta Ghoshal, the authorized representative of Sri Rajkumar Rai Choudhury”(herein OP3).Photocopy of the letter dated 17.02.2018 issued by the OP2 to the recovery agent company goes to show that OP2 intimated the recovery company that they have received a complaint from “Susanta Ghosal being the authorized representative” of OP3. All the documents annexed by the parties are speaking that Complainant Susanta Ghosal is the authorized representative of the OP3 and theOP3, namely Rajkumar Rai Choudhury, is the owner of the vehicle in dispute. We did not get any single scrap of paper which can establish that the Complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question. Hence the present Complainant has no locus standii to file this case.  Therefore we opined that the instant complaint petition is badly suffered from the misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties in its present form.

In the result, Consumer Complaint is dismissed on contest. No order as to costs.