C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/26
COMPLAINANT : Bidyut Mondal,
S/0 Chandra Mohan Mondal,
of NH-34, Chuapur More,
P.O. Chaltia, P.S. Berhampore,
Dt. Murshidabad
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Branch Manager,
Sri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
16/118, D.L. Roy Road,
Bowbazar, P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
2) Field Executive,
Sri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
16/118, D.L. Roy Road,
Bowbazar, P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
3) Bhandari Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.
at Rupnarayanpur, P.O. Jakpur,
P.S. Kharagpur, Dist. Paschim Midnapur,
A/P Sasthitola Halderpara, P.O. Krishnagar
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 30th September, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased TATA truck, model No. LPT 2515/48 TC ES-E-11 from the OP No. 3, Bhandari Auto Mobiles on 31.08.07. In the purchase receipt it was disclosed that Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd. is the financier. After getting the said truck he filed a petition for the registration of the said vehicle from RTA, Murshidabad. RTA Murshidabad informed him that in the name of financier it was wrongly mentioned as Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd. On getting the information, he wrote a letter to the OP No. 3 regarding that mistake. Thereafter, OP No. 3 wrote a letter to RTA, Mushidabad that at the time of delivery financier was suggested as Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd. But due to some technical problems the financier was changed and in its place Sri Ram Transport Finance Ltd. was added as financer. So they changed the financier’s name in all the documents and requested the RTA to change the same in the RC Book. Thereafter, this petitioner got the registration number from RTA, Murshidabad on 27.03.08. It is his further claim that due to his mistake of the OP No. 3 he could not ply his vehicle for the above said period since purchase, as a result of which he lost earnings of Rs. 1500/- per day and the total amount being Rs. 2,70,000/-. Due to this he could not deposit the instalment amount in due time to Sri. Ram Transport Co. Ltd. On 09.05.08 Sri Ram Transport Co. seized the truck on the way from Digboy to Kolkata at Islampur, Dist. West Dinajpur and took possession of the same. After payment of the claim amount of Sri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. the truck was handed over to this complainant and this suffering caused to him due to mistake of the OP No. 3. In total he suffered a financial loss of Rs. 4,98,300/- which the OPs are bound to repay him. He claimed the said amount to the OPs who declined to pay the said amount. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OP No. 1, Sri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is his submission that at the time of purchase of the said vehicle the complainant proposed the name of the finance company as Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd. but when the said finance Co. refused to finance the said vehicle the complainant made an application for loan to this OP on 31.08.07 who granted the loan on condition that the loan amount would be repaid by 59 EMI regularly. But the complainant failed to pay the EMI regularly. This OP has no knowledge about the technical difficulty of the registration of the complainant’s vehicle. He is a defaulter in payment of EMI. So he has no cause of action to file this case against him and the same is liable to be dismissed also.
The OP No. 3, Bhandari Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. has filed a separate written version in this case, inter alia, stating that at the time of issuing receipt dtd. 10.08.07, the complainant suggested the name of his financier as Magma Shrachi Finance Co. Ltd. But instead of entering into finance agreement with the said financier, he entered into the agreement dtd. 05.09.07 with the OP No. 1 & 2 without giving any information to this OP for making necessary correction in the receipt and all other documents. Thereafter, as per request of the complainant with regard to change of the financier in the records, the OP No. 3 changed that name on receipt dtd. 31.08.07 and a communication to that effect was sent to the concerned registering authority with a request to change the name of the financier in the RC Book. So this delay in getting registration of the vehicle by the complainant was caused due his own fault and this OP has no liability in it. He also denies that due to this technical defect made by him the complainant failed to repay the EMI in timely to the OP No. 1 & 2. It is his fault which caused to get the registration of the vehicle at a belated stage. So he has no cause of action to file this case against him and the same is liable to be dismissed also.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint along with the annexed documents filed by the complainant and the written versions filed by the OPs it is available on record that admittedly this complainant purchased one TATA truck model No. LPT 2515/48 TC ES-E-11 from the OP No. 3, Bhandari Auto Mobiles on 31.08.07. But from the delivery receipt filed by Bhandari Auto Mobiles, it is available that the said receipt was issued on 10.08.07. Complainant’s allegation is that though the financier was Sri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. but in the delivery receipt it was written as Magma Shrachi Finance Co. Ltd. by the OP No. 3 due to which there was delay in getting registration of the vehicle which caused him huge amount of financial loss as he could not ply the vehicle for a long time. OP No. 1 has categorically stated in the written version that originally the complainant made an agreement with the Magma Shrachi Finance Co. Ltd. for getting loan. But as the company declined to give him loan, so he requested the OP No. 1 to sanction loan and accordingly, this OP No. 1 sanctioned loan with condition to repay the said amount by 59 EMI starting on and from 01.10.07. From the petition of complaint as well as from the argument of the ld. lawyer for the complainant it is evident that the complainant failed to pay the EMI amount due to which the vehicle was seized by the OP No. 1 and after payment of all the dues amount it was handed over to the complainant. Complainant’s allegation is that the OP No. 3 intimated the RTA, Murshidabad regarding the change of financier at a belated stage due to which he got the registration certificate from the RTA, Murshidabad on 27.03.08 which is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 3. From the document, ‘Annexure – 1’ filed by the complainant it is available that the name of his financier Sri Ram Transport Co. Ltd. was mentioned by the OP No. 3 in the sale certificate on 31.08.07. From ‘Annexure – 2’ it is also available that on 31.08.07, i.e., on the selfsame date the OP No. 3 by a letter intimated the registering authority, MVD, Murshidabad that the financier was changed to Sri Ram Transport Co. Ltd. from Magma Shrachi Finance Co. Ltd. and requested the registering authority to change that in the RC Book. In the petition of complaint it is categorically stated at para- 1 that the complainant purchased the said truck from the OP No. 3 on 31.08.07. So considering the petition of complaint along with the documents ‘Annexure – 1 & 2’ we find that on the very date of purchase in the sale certificate it was mentioned by the OP No. 3 the name of the financier as Sri Ram Transport Co. Ltd. On the selfsame date also he intimated this to the registering authority, MVD, Murshidabad by a letter regarding the change of the financier with a request to change that in the RC Book also (Vide ‘Annexure – 2’). So considering the annexed documents 1 & 2 and the petition of complaint we find that there was no delay or negligence on the part of the OP No. 3 to intimate the registering authority, Murshidabad regarding the change of the financier of the complainant. Complainant’s contention is that he got the registration certificate on 27.03.08. He has not filed any copy of that registration certificate. Certificate was issued by RTA, Murshidabad and in that case the OP No. 3 had no liability to issue that certificate at an early date. It is the complainant’s duty to procure the certificate at an early date at his own interest.
In view of the above discussions and considering the facts of the case our considered view is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 3 as alleged by the complainant, nor there is any negligence on his part in getting the registration certificate of the complainant’s vehicle on 27.03.08. In course of argument ld. lawyer for the complainant has submitted that he has no allegation against the OP No. 1 & 2 and does not pray for any relief against them also. As the complainant has miserably failed to prove the negligence or deficiency in service against the OP No. 3, so we find that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. Practically, he has no cause of action to file this case against the OPs. In the petition of complaint it is mentioned that cause of action arose on 31.08.07, but the present case was filed on 02.03.11 i.e., after a lapse of more than 3 years. It is his contention that previously he filed a case before the D.C.D.R.F., Murshidabad being No. 187/08 and due to jurisdiction point he withdrew the case and thereafter filed the present case. From another document filed by the complainant it is available that vide order No. 14, dtd. 19.01.11, the D.C.D.R.F., Murshidabad allowed the complainant to withdraw the case pending there and to file the same before the appropriate Forum. So we hold that the case is not barred by the principle of limitation. As the complainant has not become able to prove his case, so he is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/26 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
