MRS RAJASHREE AGARWALLA, MEMBER-
Deficiency in service in respect of illegal repossession of the Complainant’s vehicle are the allegations arrayed against ops.
2. Complaint in nutshell reveals that Complainant to maintain his family purchased a VETURE-GX vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-29A-2266 having Engine No.-4751DT18KYSSK5196 and Chasis No.- MAT483567 BYK 11266 being financed by OP- finance Company. Out of the total finance amount of Rs.5,38,203/- the Complainant-borrower paid a sum of Rs. 1,17,260/- as initial payment and Rs. 11,861/- was fixed as monthly installments. It is revealed from the Complaint petition that, Complainant was paying the monthly dues through cheques at PUNJAB National Bank, Pattamundai and also premiums were paid to the collection-Agent of OP through cash and on dtd. 16.04.2016 the loan premium amount of Rs. 12,000/- by cash and thereafter Complainant admitted to the near Hospital for ill health. It is also revealed that Ops on dt. 18.4.2016 using the muscle power repossed the vehicle at Link Road, Cuttack. When complainant enquired and reached the office of Op No.1 at Bhubaneswar, Op No.1 demanded Rs. 29,000/- for different charges. It is categorically stated that Complainant was never a defaulter in respect of payment of loan installments and the repossession of the Complainant’s vehicle is completely illegal, arbitrary and Ops are deficient in service for such illegal repossession of the vehicle. The cause of action of the instant case arose on dt. 1.8.2016 when the Ops lastly refused to return the vehicle. Hence, Complainant before the Forum, with prayer that a direction may be given to Ops for return of the vehicle with all fittings and to pay Rs. 55,000/- in toto as compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation.
3. Upon notice Ops TATA FINANCE COMPANY, appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. P.K.Ray and associates filed written statements into the dispute challenging the maintainability of the Complaint, as per the agreement of terms and condition and clause of Arbitration, territorial Jurisdiction, cause of action etc. by presenting decision of Honbl’e Supreme Court, and Honbl’e National Commission and submitting the facts it is stated that Ops being a finance Company assist the Complainant by providing loan to purchase a venture-GX Model vehicle bearing Regd. No.- OR-29A-2266 after execution of loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement bearing No.-5000938664 dtd. 27.03.2012. The finance amount was Rs. 4,25,000/- and finance charge on the said amount was Rs.2,26,133/- and Insurance provision of Rs. 60,400/- and the total contract value is Rs. 7,11,713/-. The total amount was payable on 60 monthly installments from dt. 02/05/2012 to dt. 02/04/2017 @ Rs. 11,861/-. It is averred that when Complainant was a defaulter in respect of payment of installment dues in time and as per the Arbitration clause of agreement and order of Ld. Arbitrator dtd. 19/3/2016 repossessed the vehicle on dt. 18.4.2016 and the repossed vehicle was sold to highest bidder in June 2016 for Rs. 80,000/- and after adjustment of the sale proceed, the Complainant is still liable to pay Rs. 47,123/- towards overdue installments and Rs. 45,475.44 towards overdue interests. Further, Ops in their reply averred that as per the admission of the complainant last payment was made on dt. 16/4/2014 and after 2 years on default of payment of the EMIS Ops repossessed the vehicle in the order Ld. Arbitrator dtd. 19.3.2016 in arbitration proceeding No.-TMFSL/ARB/March,Lot-37(2016)1066. Copy of the Account/cardex is annexed as Annexure-A/2 and the order copy of ld. Arbitrator dt. 19.3.2016 filed as Annexure-B/2. It is again averred that as per the C.C.case last payment of Rs.12,000/- was made by complainant on dt.16.4.2014, which it self-shows that Complaint is a regular defaulter in respect of installment dues. It is further averred that, the Op-finance Company has acted legally as per the terms & conditions of the agreement and repossessed the vehicle as per the order of ld. Arbitrator and has not committed any deficiency in service, according the Complaint is to be dismissed with cost and action should be initiated U/S 26 of C.P.Act,1986.
4. Heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and case of the Ops on merit perused the annexures filed by Op-finance Company and attested photocopies of money receipts filed by Complainant. Some of the money receipts filed by Complaint is not legible and not worthy for reading. The admitted facts of the case are that Complainant purchased a venture-GX vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-29A2266 being financed by Tata Motor Finance Company(Ops) after executing an agreement. It is also admitted that the said vehicle has been repossessed by the Op-finance Company for default in payment of installments.
It is revealed from the written statement of Ops that due to default in payment of monthly installments and as per the terms & condition of the agreement Ops referred the matter to Ld. Arbitrator U/S-17 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 and Ld. Arbitrator vide order dt. 19/3/2016 allowed the Op-finance Company to repossess the vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle was repossessed and put into auction in June 2016. Op-Finance Company to support their plea filed the attested true copy of the order of sole Arbitrator K.R. Tiwari dt. 19/3/2016 (Annexure-B/2). It is crystal clear that present consumer Complaint is filed after passing of order of Ld. Arbitrator dt. 19/3/2016, which was not disclosed in the Complaint Petition. When an order is passed by a competent Authority established under the statue, this Forum cannot pass any order in this respect, which may lead to a conformation. We, do not feel it necessary to discuss any more on merits of the Complaint.
Accordingly the Complaint is dismissed without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 18th Day of April, 2017.
