Order No. 14 dt. 16/01/2017

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant took a loan from o.p. to purchase a car (vide vehicle Registration No.WB-12B3601, Model Maruti Wagnor Duo0 LX1). Complainant purchased the car from Mr. Swagata Mukhopadhyay resident of 109, Tripura Roy Lane, P.O. Salkia, Howrah by paying Rs.2,20,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.56,000/- by cash to the financier out of Rs.2,20,000/- and it was fixed that rest amount of Rs.1,64,000/- would be paid by 48 EMIs. Accordingly , o.p. collected 50 nos. of PDCs of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Barrackpore Branch being A/c No.14142191002890. The said loan had been disbursed on 28.08.2014 and as per loan agreement the clearance date of the PDCs started from 05.10.2014 to 05.09.2018. So the tenure of loan period was settled for 48 months. Complainant already paid Rs.12,000/- for Car  Registration Certificate and paid Rs.6,500/- for Car Insurance. Complainant have been paid all successive EMIs till date. The o.p. had kept the original certificate of Car Registration/Blue Book of the said vehgicle for the purpose of transferring the name from previous owner to this complainant.

Complainant visited several times at the office of o.p. to get original certificate of registration /blue book of the said vehicle but in vain. Then the complainant sent letters to o.,p. on 13.03.2015 and 16.04.2015. O.p.  also sent a letter on 28.04.2015 inviting the complainant for discussion but unfortunately on the date of meeting i.e. 08.05.2015. complainant did not get any assurance  from o.p. to get back his car registration certificate. Therefore  the complainant could not drive his car on road and car has been kept in idle condition in the garage. Hence the application praying for direction upon o.p. to give proper car registration certificate in the name of complainant along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss suffered by the complainant and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Sole o.p. appeared before this Forum and filed their written version. In their w/v they denied all material allegation inter alia stated that the complaint petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of  necessary parties. As per loan agreement the o.p. is not supposed to get the registration or changing the name from previous owner to the complainant’s name in books of Regional Transport Office. Complainant stated in his petition that he paid Rs.12,000/- to some Mukesh Yadav for car registration certificate and also paid Rs.6,500/- for insurance. But this o.p. has no relation with said Mukesh Yadav. The o.p. is no way responsible for paper works since the payment was made to Mukesh Yadav not to o.p. O.p. has not kept the original certificate of registration/blue book of the said vehicle for transferring the name. The  complaint case is barred u/s 8(i) of The Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 since dispute between the parties arisen out of an agreement which contains an arbitration clause at clause no.12.1. The averments made in the complaint petition are vague, baseless and mala-fide intent. Hence the complaint petition is liable to be rejected u/s 26 of Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Decision with reasons 

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and materials on record. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a car from one Swagata Mukhopadhyay for total consideration of Rs.2,20,000/-. The complainant filed a photocopy of money receipt to that effect. Complainant availed of loan from o.p. to purchase the said vehicle. It is evident from disbursal letter and repayment schedule issued by o.p. that loan amount was Rs.1,64,000/-, PDC start date and PDC end date were respectively 05.10.2014 and 05.09.2018. Complainant  is paying the EMIs which is evident from his Bank statement. Complainant alleged that o.p. did not give him the registration certificate/Blue Book of the said vehicle  for which he paid Rs.12,000/- to one Mukesh Yadav but complainant had not filed any document from which it can be revealed that complainant paid Rs.12,000/- to o.p. for transferring of name and  registration certificate /Blue Book of the said vehicle. The complainant had not made the RTO as a party for proper adjudication of the case. Therefore we cannot  give any direction upon to o.p. for taking necessary measures for obtaining the Registration Certificate/ Blue Book by the complainant. Moreover, the loan has not been repaid in full. So, the car is now hypothecated to the financier.

            In view of above the case suffers from non-joinder necessary party.

Hence, ordered

            That the case no.350/2015 is dismissed  on contest without cost against the o.p.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.