The fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one tractor registration WB 15A 9644 , model no. 439 at the price of Rs.4,83,000/-.The complainant paid Rs.1,83,000/- . Apart from the above payment Op no.1 took Rs.28,000/- from the complainant. It is also case of the complainant that from 19.11.2010 to 22.5.2012 complainant paid Rs.1,27,000/- to the Op no.2. After which the complainant was unable to pay some instalments due to poor cultivation. The complainant requested the oP on 25.7.2012 that within some months he would clear the loan. But on 1.8.2012 the Opno.1 and 2 brought some unknown persons and snatched the tractor. The complainant met the O.C., Pandua and thereafter the Op no.2 collected Rs.40,000/- from the complainant and the Manager of Burdwan branch told the complainant to bring Rs.50,000/-. The same was paid by the complainant and the complainant was told to bring Rs.80,000/- again and then the tractor will be returned to him. But the Op refused to return the tractor and demanded Rs.1,20,000/-. Complainant was unable to collect Rs.1,20,000/- and was unable to pay the same . The op no.1 and 2 has been possessing the tractor . The complainant informed them on 24.1.2014 by registered letter but no result. Hence this case.
The Op no. 2 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the Op is that there had been LOAN CUM HYPOTHECATION agreement in between the complainant and the oPs. The complainant failed to pay his balance due instalment as payable under the agreement for which the Op no. 2 has taken forcefully possession of the tractor. It is also stated that complainant suppressed LOAN CUM HYPOTHECATION agreement. The Op also stated that they sent notice to the complainant for settlement as per Arbitration agreement. But the complainant did not comply the request of the Ops. Accordingly, it is prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant filed Original registration certificate, all original approval slips cum money receipts issued by Socket Motors, from 8.8.2010 to 12.10.2011. All original medical papers issued by various doctors and hospitals original money receipt/customer receipts issued by Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd from 19.11.2010 to 22.5.2012, letters of Nikhil Parta to the proprietor/Manager Shiram
Transport Finance Ltd. 4 pages , complainant also filed Evidence in chief and WNA . Op no.2 filed, Written version, Evidence in chief and Written Notes of argument.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- If there is any deficiency on the part of the oP ?
- If complainant is entitled to get any relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
Complainant stated that he purchased the vehicle by instalment and he paid the instalments after taking possession of the vehicle since 8.8.2010 to 22.5.2012 totalling Rs.3,45,000/- . He has also filed one petition addressed to Manager Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. wherein he has stated how the payment has been made. The vehicle/tractor was the source of his livelihood. But due to bad earning he was unable to pay after 22.5.2012. The price of the tractor is Rs.4,83,000/- and the E.M.I. was fixed @ Rs.9,855/- (shown in the letter to the proprietor). The complainant has paid as per his account 27 E.M.I. inspite of that the tractor was repossessed by the OP by force. The Op did not serve him any notice requiring him to pay the balance amount or informing him regarding due instalment .Before repossession the OP had some duty towards the complainant . The OP/Financer has sanctioned the loan to purchased the tractor after understanding the viability of the tractor and viability of the project. The complainant had some risk in driving the tractor in field working but OP cannot avoid his responsibility regarding the need of the complainant. As per payment record it cannot be said that complainant have no intention to pay the debt. On the surface of the record it is air-like clear that by any means the complainant has paid the EMI . So in the circumstances without serving any notice to the complainant and without giving him any opportunity , the act of the oP is nothing but act of hooligans and rubbery by looting the goods in possession of the complainant and which was meant to plough the land for the livelihood of the complainant. Such kind of acts and allegations has become very common where the Govt. are providing business facilities to the youth and people to earn their livelihood . Not only that the Central Govt. and the State Govt. are also taking different measures for upliftment of the lower section of the society , particularly to raise their financial and social status and to give them employment. The complainant has taken the loan to return the same to wither for the gain of the oP. The oP is not doing mercy to the complainant . The Op are doing business for their profit . Op is reminded that having money they have some duty towards the common public of the society for upliftment of those downtrodden section of the society . In this perspective Ops responsibility cannot be ruled out . He must discharge his duty towards society as well as to earn some money. Therefore, none shall praise the high handed activity of the present bankers, who are dealing business by giving money in interest to the public . So the high handed activity of the oP and omission of the oP to pay respect and help to the complainant is not praiseworthy and harmful to the society and against the act and principles of the Govt. in upliftment the unemployed person and development in cultivation. With this discussion and paying attention to the facts and circumstances of the case and paying attention to the miserable condition of the village unemployed illiterate youth this Forum is of strong conviction that material on record supports the complainant’s case and the same succeeds on contest. The complainant shall get relief as per provision laid down in the Section 14 of C.P.Act, 1986. Hence it is
Ordered
That the CC no. 182 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Op no.2 is directed to return the Tractor , (Model no. 439) , with all accessories in good condition to the complainant. The Op is further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) towards compensation to the complainant for his financial loss and loss of income with interest @ 9% per annum since 1.8.2012 till full payment is made . The OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost.
The Op shall comply the above orders within 45 days from the date of this order by returning the tractor with accessories and by payment of aforesaid amount by issuing A/c payee cheque in the name of the complainant i.d. Rs.200/- shall be imposed as penalty per day and that amount shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
