IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/8/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
17.01.18 29.01.18 19.11.19
Complainant: Md. Nazir Hossain
S/o Mohammad Sekh
Vill-Gopinathpur, Dakshinpara
PO-Gopinathpur,
PS-Beldanga
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742133
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Authorised Signatory (Branch Manager
M/S Chola Mondalam Invt. And Fin. Co. Ltd.
PO&PS-Berhampore, K.K. Banerjee Road.
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Malay Sarkar Aich.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri. Indranil Banerjee.
Present: Sri. Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Md. Nazir Hossain (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, M/S Chola Mondalam Invt. and Fin. Co. Ltd. (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is the owner of vehicle No. WB57C/1337 and he purchased the said vehicle with the financial help of the OP. The OP took illegal possession of the vehicle on 08.09.17 in spite of regular payments of monthly installments. The Complainant apprehended that the OP might sale the vehicle. The arbitrary act of the OP is nothing but deficiency in service and tantamounts to unfair trade practice. The Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to return the vehicle and to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation.
The OP put his appearance and filed written version on 24.08.18 contending that the case is not maintainable and the case is also barred by law of limitation.
It is the specific case of the OP that the Complainant purchased vehicle No. WB57C1337 by taking financial assistance amounting Rs. 5,34,900/- from the OP on the strength of agreement No. XVFBBER00001481717 dated 31.08.15 on condition to repay the loan with interest by 59 equated monthly instalments @ Rs.12,470/- payable by first date of each month. The Complainant is a habitual defaulter and he used to pay EMI at belated dates. Finding no other alternatives, the OP seized the vehicle in Jan, 2017 after observing all formalities and the Complainant took back his vehicle from the custody of the OP after paid some cash amount along with repossession charges. Subsequently, the OP seized the vehicle in July, 2018 after fulfilling all requirements due to non-payment of EMI. Subsequently, the Complainant took back the vehicle on 31.07.18. After receiving the vehicle ,the Complainant again defaulted to make payment of EMI by due date. The OP issued a letter dated 24.10.18 requesting the Complainant to make payment and ultimately took possession of the vehicle from the custody of the Complainant and prepared the pre sale notice dated 10.11.17 which was sent through registered post to the Complainant on 16.11.17. The OP has no deficiency in service.
On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for consideration
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point No.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired the services of the OP for consideration. The Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not a consumer.
Having gone through the materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we think that the Complainant is consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos. 3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP seized the vehicle on 18.09.17 without any notice in spite of the fact that he paid EMI regularly in terms of agreement. He prays for a direction upon the OP to return his vehicle and to pay Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the OP seized the vehicle twice before seizure of the vehicle on 08.11.17. He argues that the OP seized the vehicle of the Complainant in January and July, 2017 for non-payment of EMI and the Complainant took back his vehicle on payment of certain amount along with repossession charges. It is contended that the OP seized the vehicle in terms of agreement between the parties. It is submitted that the Complainant got back his vehicle from the custody of the OP by executing a memorandum of understanding dated 31.07.17 on payment of Rs.35,000/- with an undertaking to pay all the future installments without any delay/default. It is submitted that the Complainant again defaulted in payment of EMI for which notice dated 24.10.17 and 10.11.17 were sent to the Complainant by registered post with AD requesting him to make payment of dues with interest within a specific period. It is urged that the OP seized the vehicle on 08.11.17 in accordance with rules for non-payment of EMI as per agreement.
He argues that the OP has no deficiency in service and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
We have gone through the materials on record. Admittedly, the Complainant took financial assistance of Rs.5,34,900/- from the OP for purchase of the vehicle. It appears from the statement of accounts that the Complainant used to pay EMI at belated stage and it also appears from the memorandum of understanding dated 31.07.17 executed by the Complainant that he paid Rs.35,000/- with an undertaking to pay all future installments without any delay/default.
We find that the Complainant defaulted in payment of EMI by due dates and the OP issued notice dated 24.10.17 and 10.11.17 requesting the Complainant to make payment of dues. The Complainant has asserted that the OP seized the vehicle on 08.09.17 but he filed a inventory showing that he surrendered the vehicle on 08.11.17 at 4 p.m. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Complainant was not regular in payment of EMI as per agreement and memorandum of understanding. We find that the Complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
In our considered opinion, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 17.01.18 and admitted on 29.01.18 . This Forum 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.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, the complaint case fails. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/8/2018 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.
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.
