IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                     CASE No.  CC/82/2018

 Date of Filing:                                   Date of Admission:                             Date of Disposal:

   10.05.2018                                              17.05.2018                                           24.08.2023

Complainant:  1. Md. Sharuk Kadar Ali,

                                S/o- Kadar Ali Seikh,

                                2. Kadar Ali Seikh

                                S/o- Lt Ohab Sk.

                                Vill- Biswanathpur, P.O.-Sabaldaha,

                                P.S.-Khargram, Dist- Murshidabad,

                                Pin-742157

                                                                -Vs-

Opposite Party1.M/S Indusland Bank Ltd,

                        Authorised Representative Consumer Finance Division,

                        116, G.N. Chetty Road,    

                        T. Nagar, Chennai 600017

                         2. Manager, Berhampore Branch

                        Indusind Bank Ltd.,

                        Kadbeltala, Jalangi Road, Near Reha Servicing Centre,

                        P.O.- Cossimbazar, P.S.-Berhampore,

                        Dist- Murshidabad,

                        Pin-742102.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainants                       :           SriKrishna Nandi

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties                  :           Kapil Dev Ghosh

           Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.     

   Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

   Sri. ajay kumar das, presiding member.

   This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Md. Sharuk Kadar Ali and Anr. (here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against M/S Indusland Bank Ltd. Authorised Representative Consumer Finance Division   & Anr. (here in after referred to as the O.P.s) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

The Complainants filed the instant petition stating that he agreed to purchase a TATA ACE MAGIC to run on a route as a passenger carrier and approached the vehicles supplier agency and they arranged a loan from the O.P. Bank on the terms and conditions they agreed with.  The Complainants made an agreement with the Bank as borrower No. 1 & 2. The Complainants invested Rs. 1,49,000.00/- (One lakh forty nine thousand) only towards their own contribution and the O.P. Bank extended loan of Rs. 3,40,000,00/-(Three lakh forty thousand) and paid the same amount to the vehicle supplier agency. As per the terms of the said agreement the Complainants were liable to repay the amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- along with finance charges and insurance charges in 47 equal monthly installments of Rs. 10700/-( Ten thousand seven hundred only).

The aforesaid loan was sanctioned in June 2016 and the vehicle was availed thereafter and the installment of repayment was started from the Month of October 2016. Here below is the schedule of repayment:-

  The Complainant paid all the installments except one for a month which might be paid in the Month of November, 2017.

Thereafter, the O.P. Bank sent a notice to the Complainants on 07.09.2017 demanding of Rs. 41831/- to pay within 7 days without any explanation, even on query the Complainant continued to pay the installments and the O.P. Bank accepted all. But all on a sudden the O.P. Bank just after 8 days of installment payment repossessed the vehicle without any prior intimation.

The Complainants purchased the vehicle of Rs. 149000/- and paid the installments of Rs. 149800/- . The Complainants sent two replies to the Bank on 18.02.2018 and 20.04.2018 for redressal and giving back the vehicle under their possession but the O.P. Bank refused to do it.

Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission praying for appropriate relief.

Defence Case

After due service of the notices O.P. 2 appeared by filing W/V stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The Specific case of the O.P. 2 is that the instant complaint filed by the Complainant is liable to be rejected as the Complainant did not abide by and performed the terms and conditions as mentioned and prescribed in the very agreement for loan as executed by and between the Complainant and the O.P. and the same is simply amounting to breach of contract and considering the same the present complaint case is liable to be rejected summarily.

Points for decision

1. Are the Complainants consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Are the Complainants entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1

 We peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Point Nos. 2 & 3

Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

 The point to be noted is that today (24.08.2023) is fixed for hearing of argument. But both the parties are found absent on call. The record further shows that 01.09.2022, 27.12.2022, 05.04.2023 were also fixed for hearing of argument. But both the parties were found absent on call on those days.

We perused the materials on record. It is admitted by the Complainants that they paid all the installments except one for a month which might be paid in the Month of November 2017. Here we find that the Complaint is violated the terms and conditions of the agreement.

The Complainant had further stated in his complaint that the Complainant No. 1 agreed to purchase a TATA ACE MAGIC to run on a route as a passenger carrier. It is a clear indication that he purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose.

We have already mentioned that the Complainant is reluctant to proceed with the instant complaint case since long. In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 10.05.2018 and admitted on 17.05.2018. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.     

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is                                                            

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/82/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.  

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

 Dictated & corrected by me.

            President

               Member                                                                                                                   President.