View 30724 Cases Against Finance
View 30724 Cases Against Finance
Uma Sankar Thakur,S/O-Late Hansraj Thakur filed a consumer case on 11 Mar 2015 against BM TATA MOTERS Finance Ltd, in the Jharsuguda Consumer Court. The case no is cc/60/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 26 Dec 2017.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 60 OF 2014
Uma Shankar Thakur (55 Yrs),
S/O- Late Hansraj Thakur,
RO: Bandhbahal Colony, Qtr.No. M/705 PO: Bandhbahal,
PS: Banharpali, Dist:Jharsuguda,Odisha………………..…………Complainant.
Versus
Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,
Sambalpur Branch, Balaji Tower 2nd Floor, In front of Diamond Laundry,
G.M.College Road,Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha.
Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,
At: 1st Floor Dua Complex,Panposh Road, Rourkela,
Dist: Sundargarh, Odisha.
Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,
At: 1-Think Techno Campus Building A, 2nd Floor Off Pokhran Road-2,
Thane West- 400 607 ( Maharashtra )
S/O: Not known, Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,
At: Gumadera Nayapada, PO/PS: Belpahar,
Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha……………………………………..….…...Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Shri Abdul Zalil, Adv. & Associates.
For the Opp. Party Shri A.K.Sahoo, Adv. Associates.
Date of Order: 11.03.2015
Present
1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.
2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Sr. Member.
3. Smt. A. Nanda, Member.
Shri S.L.Behera, President : - The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant had purchased one ten wheeler truck bearing Regn. No.OR-23B-6144 which was financed by the O.Ps. The complainant have cleared all the dues against the said vehicle for which the O.Ps. have issued NOC and a fresh R.C. Book was also issued without endorsement of hypothecation mark. The O.Ps. have forcibly mentioned the said vehicle as a guarantor of a trailer which was financed by the O.Ps. The complainant approaches several times for cancellation of hypothecation mark of the said vehicle but the O.Ps did not take any heed, hence this case.
The O.Ps. appeared through their counsel after being noticed and filed written version wherein it has been stated that the complainant availed loan of Rs.11,93,000/- only vide agreement No. 5000263184 which has been disbursed and further submitted that the complainant does not come under the definitions of Consumer Protection Act as the loan availed are for commercial purpose and have also another commercial vehicle bearing Regn.No. OD-23-0544 and he has also filed another case in respect of the said vehicle before this Hon’ble Forum vide C.C.Case No. 62/2014 and filed several citations.
Heard and perused the case record along with materials available. Though the complainant has cleared all the dues of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.OR-23B-6144 the O.Ps. have mentioned as guarantor against another vehicle financed in his favour. As an another case is pending on another vehicle bearing Regn.No. OD-23-0544 purchased under higher purchase scheme in this regard Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held in a case between Eicher Motors Ltd. Vrs. Dilip Chandra Kanta Vaidya & Ors. bearing First Appeal No. 365 of 1999 that “engaged in transportation of passenger- purchasing two more buses- cannot be says that he could drive both buses without employing driver- held that neither the complainant / respondent was consumer nor the buses were purchased for self-employment to cover it under exclusion from the phrase commercial purpose- complaint must fails on these grounds”.
As per the above facts and circumstances we do not found any merit in this case, hence we dismiss the complaint case with no costs.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today the 11th day of March’ 2015 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.
I Agree. I Agree,
S.K.Ojha, Sr.Member A.Nanda, Member (W) S. L. Behera President
Dictated and corrected by me
S. L. Behera, President.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.