STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
(Appeal No.56 of 2012)
Mohan Babu Prop.
Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Industrial Area Patna Appellant.
VERSUS
Dr. Janak Lal Sharma
Mohalla Saraiya,
North of N.H- 28, Goplaganj Respondent.
BEFORE,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.Sinha, President,
Hon’ble Sri Upendra Jha, ADM(Rtd), Member,
ORDER
17.03.2017
Upendra Jha, Member
This appeal is against the order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the District Forum Gopalganj in complaint case No. 78 of 2010 by which the appellant is directed to pay the respondent complainant Rs. 54,342/- with 9% interest Rs. 5000/- compensation and Rs. 3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days.
2. Shortly, stated the respondent purchased a Tata Sumo Victa on the finance of the opposite party- appellant. The entire loan amount was repayed by the complainant with Rs. 46,342/- excess amount by fradism. The excess amount was to be refunded to the respondent within a month but neither the excess amount has been refunded nor the collateral security land documents has been returned. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party, who contested the case. After hearing parties the District Forum passed the impugned order against which this appeal is preferred.
3. Respective written arguments have been filed by the parties. Heard.
4. The counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation as the vehicle was purchased on 02.02.2006 but the complaint has been filed after 4 years on 07.09.2010 against the two years period under section 24 A(i) of the consumer Protection Act 1986. This is main objection raised by the opposite party – appellant. But This is not true complaint is filed within two years of cause from the action. The appellant Mohan Babu is prop. of Shanker Motors an unauthorized dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. and the complainant has no grievance against him. There is dispute in between complainant and Tata Motor Finance not from Shanker Motors Ltd. Tata Motors Finance has not been made a necessary party for proper adjudicatin. The appellant has no branch office at Goplaganj. All transactions are done from Patna office. There is no cause of action arose is Gopalganj. These points have not been considered by the District Forum. There is no deficiency on the part of the appellant. The District Forum order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is fit to be set aside. The appeal be allowed.
5. The counsel for the respondent complainant submits that the appellant Mohan Babu represents the Shankar Motors as well as Tata Motors. He has booked and delivered the vehicles Tata Sumo Victa as also he signed and delivered the loan cum hypothecation. Agreement on behalf of Tata Motors annexed as annexure 3, Page 24 of Memo of appeal.
6. Having considered the submissions of parties and on perusal of the district Forum order as also the materials available on record, it appears that the District Forum has not considered the matter in right perspective. The complainant has taken loan from the Tata Motors Finance limited not from Tata Motors private limited who is a dealer to sell vehicles and not finance works as financer two amounts are to be refunded Rs. 46,342/- + Rs. 2504.00 altogether 48,846/-. The present appeal has been filed on the basis of false technicalities and mis-representation. The district Forum order is proper. It needs no interference. The appeal has no merits. It is fit to be dismissed.
It is a separate organization. Undoubtedly, the complainant repaid excess amount Rs. 46,342/- as observed by the District Forum to the Financer and not to a dealer opposite party. The financer should had to be made as a necessary party to adjudicate the complaint. Hence the Appeal is allowed and remanded to the District Forum for fresh hearing adducing evidence if any and for passing a reasoned order within 3 months for the receipt of this order.
The appeal is allowed.
(S.K.Sinha) (Upendra Jha) President Member(M )
Mukund
