Shri Biswa Nath Konar , President.
The case of the complainant Asim Sk., in brief, is that he purchased a vehicle model Mahindra Scorpio Ex being Regn. No. WB 54L 5318 with the financial assistance of the O.P. by taking a loan of Rs. 5,90,000/-with an agreement valued at Rs. 7,90,000/-. The complainant deposited the entire loan amount as per terms and condition.
It is the further case of the complainant that the O.P after receiving the entire loan amount from him issued a no objection certificate on 26.03.2014 after terminating the loan agreement contract No. 2262766.
But inspite of receiving the entire loan amount they did not deliver one key of the vehicle and cash memo bill and purchase bill to the complainant.
Lastly on 26.04.2016 the complainant had been to the Durgapur Br., Office of the O.P and requested them to deliver the key and cash memo and purchase bill but they did not pay any heed and such act of the O.P is amounting to deficiency in service. Hence, this case for directing the O.P to deliver the key, cash memo and purchase bill with other reliefs.
Inspite of receipt of summon the O.P Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. refused to accept the same and ultimately the case was heard ex parte.
Point for determination.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
- Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
During the trial the complainant Asim Sk. has examined himself as P.W.1 and some documents have been submitted by him.
Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant purchased a vehicle model Mahindra Scorpio Ex being Regn. No. WB 54L 5318 with the financial assistance of the O.P. by taking a loan of Rs. 5,90,000/-with an agreement valued at Rs. 7,90,000/-.
So, the complainant is consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act.
Point No.2:: O.P has Branch Office at Suri within jurisdiction of this Forum.
The total valuation of the case is Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost and compensation of Rs. 200/- per dim which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.
Point No. 3 and 4:: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.
P.W.1 Asim Sk. in his complaint and evidence stated that he purchased a vehicle model Mahindra Scorpio Ex being Regn. No. WB 54L 5318 with the financial assistance of the O.P. by taking a loan of Rs. 5,90,000/-with an agreement valued at Rs. 7,90,000/-. The complainant deposited the entire loan amount as per terms and condition.
It is the further case of the complainant that the O.P after receiving the entire loan amount from him issued a no objection certificate on 26.03.2014 after terminating the loan agreement contract No. 2262766.
It is the further case of the complainant that inspite of receiving the entire loan amount they did not deliver one key of the vehicle and cash memo bill and purchase bill to the complainant.
It appears from the copy of the no objection certificate dated 26.03.2014 issued by the O.P Company and statement of account dated 16.11.2012 stands in the name of the complainant Asim Sk. that he had repaid the entire loan amount and thereafter the O.P issued no objection certificate in his favour.
So the O.P Finance Co. is duty bound to deliver the one key of the said vehicle with cash memo and bills of the said vehicle.
We find that in the present case the O.P Finance Co. inspite of due service of notice did not turn up. So, it can be said that they have nothing to say.
Considering overall matter into considerations and materials on record we are constrained to hold that the complainant has been able to prove his case that inspite of receipt5 of entire loan amount the O.P Finance Co. did not deliver the one key purchased bill and cash memo in favour of the complainant inspite of several request which amounts to deficiency in service and the O.P Finance Co. is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant.
Thus the case succeeds.
Proper fees have been paid.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that C.F case No. 74/2016 be and the same is allowed on ex parte with litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- payable to the complainant.
The O.P Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. is directed to deliver one key of the Vehicle No. WB 54L 5318, cash memo and purchase bill of the same within one month.
The O.P is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service within one month from this date of order failing which the complainants shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.
Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.
