West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/48/2020

Radhashyam Sadhu, S/O.Lt S.Sadhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

BM, Hyderabad HDB Financial Services Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Nabendu Ghosal

16 Aug 2023

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder. President in Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The fact of the case in brief is that one Radhashyam Sadhu Permanent resident of Vill. & P.O. Deucha, P.S. Md. Bazar, Dist. Birbhum purchased two vehicles being No. WB 53B-5366 and WB 53B-4063 by financial help from OP No. 1 (Finance Company). The complainant has repaid the entire loan amount to the financer i.e. OP No. 1

            It is the further case of the complainant that your complainant lastly paid the amount of Rs. 5000/- for the vehicle No. 53B-5366 and Rs. 4000/- for the vehicle No. WB 53B- 4063 on 09/02/2018 and thereby the OP had been closed the loan amount of the said vehicle. But the OP did not issue any NOC for the said two vehicles regarding repayment of the entire loan amount.

            It is the next case of the complainant that on several occasions the complainant visited the office of OP No. 1 claiming the said NOC. in his favour but lastly on 21/03/2018 the authorized lawyer of the complainant served legal notice regarding the above stated matter to the head office of the OP but the OP dragged the matter day after day with false promise to deliver NOC very soon through regd. Post on the basis of complainant’s address but all efforts are in vain. Lastly on 17/06/2020 the complainant met the OP No. 1 but all attempts were in vain. Hence this case.

            Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice.

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this complaint before this Forum/Commission for proper relief and prays for:

 

 

 

1. To order/directing the OPs to issue NOC for the two vehicles being No. WB 53B-5366 and WB 53B-4063 in favour of the complainant.
2. To pass order directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for litigation cost and mental agony and harassment and also stationary charges of Rs. 5000/- as the complainant entitled to.
3. Any other relief/reliefs as your honour may deem fit and proper.

“It appears from case record that none appears from OPs before this District Commission after receiving the notice. OPs have not taken any steps. No written version has yet been filed by the OPs.  As a result of that vide order No. 22 dated 23/02/2023 this Commission stated for running of the instant case exparte against the OPs.”

Complainant’s side submitted evidence-in-chief and written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant himself compared with original documents. Thereafter, Ld. Advocate for the complainant made oral argument in support of his case.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the complainant purchased two vehicle through loan being Loan A/C No. 632514/822709 from OP No. 1. Thus the complainant is a consumer under the OP members and the OPs are the service provider. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(7)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Point No. 2:

            In this case, the cause of action arose on and from 09/02/2018 and lastly on 16/06/2020 and the case has been filed on 13/08/2020 and as such it can be said that the complainant has been filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 2019 and as such the instant complaint is not barred U/S 69(1) of the C.P. Act, 2019.

            Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Notification No. G.S.R. 892(E). dated 20^th December, 2022 by Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi is Rs. 50 lakh.

            That the complainant is a resident of Vill. And P.O. Deucha ,P.S. Md. Bazar, Dist. Birbhum, which is under the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Sec. 34(2) of C.P. Act, 2019.

            Hence, this Commission has Pecuniary Jurisdiction as well as Territorial Jurisdiction.

 

                                                                                 

Point No. 3:

It appears from the documentary evidence as available in the case record that the complainant purchased two Vehicle Being No. 53B-5366 and WB 53B- 4063 through loan from OP No. 1 being Loan A/C No. 632514/822709. Thereafter, the complainant lastly paid the amount in cash of Rs. 5000/- for the vehicle No. 53B-5366 and Rs. 4000/- for the vehicle No. WB 53B- 4063 on 09/02/2018. After that, the OP No. 1 had closed the loan account of the said vehicles.

But, the OP did not issue any sort of NOC in respect of said two vehicle.

On several occasions the complainant visited the office of OP No. 1 for issuing NOC in favour of himself. But the OP No. 1 did not issue the same.

 It is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that there is/was deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(11) of C.P. Act, 2019 as well as unfair trade practice as per Sec. 2(47) of C.P. Act, 2019 on the part of the OPs.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant could be able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Point No. 4:

            As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.F. Case No. 48/2020 be and same is allowed exparte against the OPs with cost.

The OP No. 1 is directed to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner for the said two vehicles being Nos. 53B-5366 and WB 53B- 4063 in respect of Loan A/C No. 632514/822709.

The OP No. 1 is also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) as mental agony and harassment to the complainant and Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand only) as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP No. 1 within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, in default the complainant would be entitled to get interest on entire decretal amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.