IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/185/2016.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
29.12.16 06.01.17 14.06.19
Complainant: Badruddaza
S/o Late Bazle Haque
Vill-Salar Dafadarpara,
PO&PS-Salar, Murshidabad
Pin-742401
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager,
Siram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Nirmal Bhawan,
1st Floor, Jalangi Road,
Kadbeltola, PO&PS-Berhampore,
Murshidabad.
Pin-742101,
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : .Sri Nilabja Dutta
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Badruddaza (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, Siram Transport Finance 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 purchased one Tata SFC 709 FBT vehicle vide registration No. WB57 for his own livelihood by taking financial assistance from the OP amounting Rs.8,46,000/-. The Complainant agreed to pay the loan with fifty-three equal installments on and from 20.11.15 to 20.01.20 and the Complainant had been paying installments regularly. That on 29.05.16, the vehicle met an accident and the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 16.07.16 after repair for which the Complainant failed to pay two monthly installments. That on 24.11.16 a muscleman of the OP took possession of the vehicle on 24.11.16 while vehicle was loaded with bricks worth Rs.50,000/-. The OP neither gave any notice for re-possession of the vehicle nor gave any demand notice to the Complainant. The Complainant suffered huge loss due to illegal re-possession of the vehicle by the OP and he had bound to pay Rs.50,000/- to the brick owner. The Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP to return the vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Complainant.
The OP contested the case by filing written version on 03.07.17 contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the specific case of the OP that the Complainant took financial assistance of the tune of Rs.8,46,000/- from the OP for purchase of a truck vide agreement No. BAHRM0510230003.
The OP also denied the allegation of accident of the vehicle on 29.05.16 and alleged repair of the vehicle. The OP denied the fact of taking re-possession of the vehicle on 24.11.16 while the vehicle was loaded with bricks worth Rs.50,000/-. As per agreement , the Complainant was promised to pay the whole amount by fifty-three EMI but the Complainant was not regular to pay the loan amount after getting the loan for which the OP served demand notice to the Complainant and the guarantor. In spite of that the Complainant did not pay any heed to it and the OP was within its right to re-possess the vehicle which was hypothecated to the OP. That on 04.03.17, the OP released the vehicle on receipt of outstanding dues. That as per agreement the Courts under Kolkata jurisdiction shall have exclusive jurisdiction and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. The OP has prayed for rejection of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged ?
- 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.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not a consumer as he purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose. It is submitted that the Complainant has asserted in his written complaint that he purchased the truck for his own livelihood though he has not stated the said fact in his evidence.It is contended that the Complainant has not even asserted that the services availed by him are exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
Perused the written complaint, written version, evidence, written argument and documents submitted by both sides.
It appears from the inventory list dated 24.11.16 submitted by the Complainant that the vehicle No. is WB57C/1566 and the vehicle was ceased from Trisha Parking Agency, Berhampore and the name of the person surrendered the asset was Sufiuddin Sk.
On a careful consideration, we find that the Complainant purchased the truck for commercial purposes and he has not even asserted that he purchased the truck exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Therefore, we find valid reason to hold that the Complainant has failed to establish that he is a consumer. Hence, we hold that the Complainant is not a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2
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 took re-possession of the vehicle on 24.11.16 without any reason and without notice to the Complainant. He contends that the OP re-possessed the truck when the truck was loaded with bricks worth Rs.50,000/-. He prays for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the OP.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant purchased the truck being No. WB57C1566 on 27.10.15 by taking financial assistance from the OP by executing a deed of agreement on condition to repay the loan amount with interest by fifty-three EMI and the OP compelled to take possession of the vehicle due to non-payment of EMI after service of notice by registered post. He further argues that the Complainant applied for release of the vehicle loaded by bricks and the OP released the vehicle on 04.03.17 after receiving the outstanding dues. He files a xerox copy of the document in connection of release of vehicle dated 04.03.17 duly signed by both parties. It is also contended that the OP has no deficiency in service. He prays for dismissal of the complaint.
It appears from the documents filed by the OP dated 04.03.17 that the Complainant got back his vehicle loaded by bricks on 04.03.17. We have already held that the Complainant is not a consumer. As the Complainant is not a consumer, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 29.12.16 and admitted on 06.01.17. 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.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint case No. CC/185/2016 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.
Member
Member President.
