DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 235/2014
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
28.04.14 06.05.2014 18.02.2015
PETITIONER = Vs. = O.Ps.
1.Sanjoy Kr. Mondal, 1. Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd,
S/o. Pradip Mondal, Sukalp Building,
2. Anjana Das, 207, Sarat Bose Road, Kol-29.
W/o. Sanjoy Kr. Mondal, 2. M/s. Indusind Bank Ltd,
Vill- P.O. Harishpur, Rep. by its Manager/ Executive
P.S. Basirhat, Legal No. 115 & 116,
Dist- North 24 Parganas. G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar,
Chennai- 17.
3. M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd,
Jashoda Bhawan, 2nd floor,
College Para, near Falguni
Cinema Hall,
P.O. Basirhat College,
P.S. Basirhat, Pin- 743412.
4. Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd
Jashoda Bhawan,
College Para,
Near Falguni Cinema Hall,
P.O. Basirhat College,
P.S. Basirhat, Pin- 743412.
5. Bank of India, Kholapota Br,
P.O. Kholapota, P.S. Basirhat.
J U D G E M E N T
Facts of the case, in short, is that the complainant purchased TATA ACE HT engine No. 1751D107GXYSD9973 chassis No. MAT445057CZG61447 from the O.P. No.1 conducting with O.P. No.4 and hypothetication with Bank of India ( Kolkata Br) dated 25.07.12. At the time of purchased the said TATA ACE HT said O.P. no.4 acknowledged to me that insurance will be covered by the O.P. No.2 through O.P. No.3.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. Case No.-235/2014
- :: 2 :: -
The complainant stated that at the time of purchased the said vehicle Complainant No.1 categorically stated that he never interested with any non-nationalize bank for loan/ hypothetication, the then time the O.P. No.4 assured to the complainant No.1 that the vehicle will be hypotheticated by any nationalized bank. As such Bank of India (Kholapota Branch) visited the house of complainant No.1 more than five times along with O.P. No.4 and O.P. No.4 assured to complainant No.1 that Bank of India (Kholapota Br.) are agreed for hypotheticated said vehicle mentioned the above. Thereafter, the said vehicle registered by the West Bengal vehicle department vide No. WB25E8155 dated 15.01.13 valid up to 10.01.15 also specific mentioned that Bank of India is hypotheticated of the said schedule vehicle. At the time of purchased vehicle the said complainant No.2 issued blank cheques with signature and delivered to O.P. No.4 and more than Rs. 26,800/- are paid.
The complainant further stated after that dated on 31.08.13 received a notice from “Chakraborty & Associates” Advocate by that notice complainants first time got have knowledge that O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 hypotheticated of said vehicle but no specification of date of loan Agreement or other particulars. Complainants issued a reply of such notice by the appointed advocate Mr. Gobinda Ghosh not only that the complainants lodged a G.D. being No. 255 dated on 06.09.13 before the local police station at Basirhat. Thereafter, dated on 21.01.14 “Srivastava & Company” Advocates issued same notice mentioning loan Agreement number without date of such Agreement but no such documents supply regarding that contention. Complainants further issued a reply of such notice by the appointed advocate Mr. Gobinda Ghosh dated on 31.01.14.
The complainant also stated that after dated on 11.03.14 Ms. S. Rajeni Ramadass Arbitrartor send a notice with very invisible loan Agreement document and also informed that arbitration proceeding held on 25.04.14 at 5 P.M 68, Basha Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai-94. By that document complainants reviled another story that signature of complainant No. 2 is false / forged one, complainant No.2 never put any signature in any document accept bank cheques and complainant No.1 did not know that his signature put loan Agreement instead of insurance policy. During that time said complainants several occasions personally meet to O.P. Nos. 1 , 3 & 4 and several letters send to them but they always refused to talk with the complainants. Provided the complainants ready to pay entire loan money to the Bank of India. Hence the case.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 3/-
C. C. Case No.-235/2014
- :: 3 :: -
All the O.Ps have contested the case by way of filing written version.
The O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 stated that the complainant approached to the O.P Nos. 2 & 3 for financial assistance and the complainant being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the loan facility entered into an Agreement on November, 26, 2012 with the O.Ps.
The O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 further stated that the complainants put their signature in the said Agreement by accepting the terms and conditions of the loan Agreement avail the loan for purchasing the subject vehicle. It is also stated by the answering O.Ps that the O.P. No.1 at the time of delivery of the said vehicle issue sale letter where mistakenly endorse the name of the Bank of India as hypothecated with the IndusInd Bank Ltd answering O.Ps herein. After getting the knowledge that the subject vehicle is registered with endorsement the name of the Bank of India as hypothecated with the registration certificate the answering O.Ps approach to the O.P.No.1 corrected the same and on that basis motor vehicle department endorse the name of the IndusInd Bank Ltd as hypothecated with the registration certificate which is also reflected in the vehicle particulars issued by the Govt. of West Bengal Motor Vehicle Department by a letter dated 29.04.14 that subject vehicle is subject to hire purchase with IndusInd Bank Ltd. It is also stated that complainants yet not collect fresh registration certificate only to avoid the payment.
The O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 stated that the complainant is chronic defaulter of repayment of the loan amount. The O.P. Nos.2 & 3 further stated that some cheques issued by the complainants were dishonored due to insufficient of fund. That answering O.Ps send demand notices through its Advocates and giving opportunity to repay the loan amount but complainants intentionally failed and neglected to repay the same for that the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 filed one Misc Case against complainant before the 2nd Bench City Civil Court at Calcutta bearing No. 876/ 2014 for repossession of the vehicle.
The O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 further submitted that answering O.P wanted to know to the Bank of India whether there is any loan account or credit facility with his bank in the name of complainants but Bank of India by a letter dated 20.09.13 clearly stated that there is no loan account or credit facility with the Bank of India in the name of Sanjay Kr. Mondal..
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 4/-
C. C. Case No.-235/2014
- :: 4 :: -
The O.P stated that as per the Agreement having arbitration clause started arbitration proceeding against the complainants to realize the dues amounts.
The O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 stated that the complainants purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose to carry on his business and in the complaint petition the complainants never stated that he purchased the same for his livelihood. So, the complainant does not fall under the purview of the meaning of the Consumer. Hence, the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
The complainants have submitted affidavit-in-chief.
We have perused the affidavit-in-chief of the complainant and also other documents filed by the complainants.
O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 filed a written argument stating that the Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd is a commercial vehicle dealer having head office O.P. No.1 and local Basirhat Branch office as O.P. No.4. Bank of India turned down to provide loan the prayer of the complainant. Indus Ind Bank agreed to provide loan after due process with the complainant and thereafter necessary documents has been corrected knowing everything that the complainant filed this case to gain unlawfully.
O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 in their argument also stated that Rs. 348,445/- only has been received for the said vehicle including taxes.
The complainant’s prayer is untenable.
On perusal of all material on record, it appears that the civil case is pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta bearing No. 876/ 2014 for repossession of the vehicle.
The Ld. Lawyer for the O.Ps relied on decision reported in Citation: 1 (2015) CPJ 228 (NC) Berar Finance Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Borker wherein it has been held
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 5/-
C. C. Case No.-235/2014
- :: 5 :: -
that case should be dismissed where only to gain compensation amount and litigation cost the complaint is filed before the Consumer Forum. It was held in that decision that vehicle had been possessed on account of default in payment of instalments and has been sold after due notice – financer is the real owner of vehicle –deficiency not proved.
In the light of aforesaid judgement and applied our anxious thought over the matter, we are of the view that the complainant failed to prove his case properly.
Hence
Ordered,
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
