Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/40/2012

SRI RAJIB KONWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GARGO MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

SRI VIJAY PANDEY

20 Mar 2024

ORDER

Date of Argument –   Nil

Date of Judgment –    20.03.2024

            The complainant filed this case under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to deliver the possession of vehicle No.AS-06-AC/4202 to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- for causing harassment and mental anguishment and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- only being the cost of the proceeding and for any other relief.

Judgement

            The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s Rajkonwar Indane Services situated at Tengakhat within the District of Dibrugarh and within the jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission.

            The complainant purchased a TATA Truck bearing Chassis No. 23515 and Engine No.JYY124384 with finance from the Gargo Motors, Tinsukia for his day to day business of LPG cylinder supply on 28.09.2011. Regd. No. of the vehicle was AS-06-AC/4202.   

            Before delivery of the vehicle the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.1,56,997/- as down payment against the total consideration of Rs.11,55,126/- as per agreement executed between the complainant and Gargo Motors. Per month EMI was fixed at Rs.35,000/- and the complainant had been paying the EMIs regularly.

            During continuation of the same, the complainant had to stop the vehicle from work due to mechanical defects w.e.f. 22.07.2012 and the vehicle was placed for repairment in a garage at Naliapool, Dibrugarh with intimation to the Financer with a request to consider the matter to pardon him for his failure to pay the installments for the month of August, September, October and November, 2012. On getting the information the Opposite Party, Financer rendered their full cooperation with the complainant and suggested him to pay the balance amount with the subsequent installments.

            On 24.12.2012 at about 2 P.M., while the driver of the vehicle was driving the same with a view to take it from the motor garage towards the house of the complainant, then on the way at Tamulikhat under Lahowal Police Station three persons stopped the vehicle identifying themselves as the agents of Gargo Motors snatched away the key of the vehicle from the driver illegally and forcefully. On objection raised by the driver, the three employees of Gargo Motors physically insulted the driver and took away the truck leaving the driver alone in the street.

            On being aware of the incident the complainant immediately rushed to the office of Gargo Motors, Tinsukia on 25.12.2012. But unfortunately, the authority and staffs of Gargo Motors, inspite of repeated request and assurance by the complainant, refused to redeliver the vehicle to him unless and until the entire balance amount was paid by the complainant within seven days.

            The complainant had to suffer a lot due to the illegal and negligent performance of duty on the part of the Opposite Parties.

            The complainant claims that the Opposite Parties are liable for deficient and negligent services under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            The complainant prays before the Forum/Commission to award the following reliefs to the complainant :

1. To direct the O.P. to deliver the possession of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.AS06AC/4202 to the complainant.
2. To pay a sum of ₹15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh ) only for causing harassment and mental anguishment ,
3. To pay a sum of ₹10,000/- only being the cost of the proceeding and
4. Any other relief/reliefs.

            After registering the complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties contested the case by filing their W/S jointly. The opposite parties in their W/S has stated that the complaint is not maintainable in law as well as on facts and barred by limitation. The case is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the complainant being a business man is not entitled to get any relief within the purview of Consumer Protection Act.

            The opposite party No.1 and 2 are dealers of TATA MOTORS and use to sell TATA vehicles. The complainant purchased one TATA vehicle which was registered as AS06AC/4201 on 28/09/2011. The complainant purchased the vehicle with finance from M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD.           After making payment of margin money to M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD. the complainant entered into a hire purchase agreement with M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD. as pe the terms and condition both the parties agreed upon. These opposite parties have no role to play for getting finance of the said vehicle by the complainant from M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD. and if the complainant is found defaulter on payment of installments of the financed vehicle that was within M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD. and the complainant, where these opposite parties have no role to play.

            The facts narrated by the complainant against the opposite parties is based on imaginary story where these opposite parties were not at all involved in any manner and as such there was no reason to involve these opposite parties with the complaint made by the complainant. These opposite parties after getting the due consideration from the complainant delivered the vehicle to the complainant and after that the role of these opposite parties was over. The matter repayment of hire purchase installments if arises, is an exclusive affair of M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD. and the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove that there was any role of financing of the vehicle, re-possession etc. These O.Ps. had no involvement at all and hence the complaint of the complainant be dismissed with an exemplary cost to meet the end of justice.

            In this case the complainant had submitted his evidence in affidavit on 17.10.2023. In his evidence the complainant stated that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s Rajkonwar Indane Services situated at Tengakhat within the District of Dibrugarh and within the jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission.

            The complainant purchased a TATA Truck bearing Chassis No. 23515 and Engine No.JYY124384 with finance from the Gargo Motors, Tinsukia for his day to day business of LPG cylinder supply on 28.09.2011. Regd. No. of the vehicle was AS-06-AC/4202.

            Before delivery of the vehicle the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.1,56,997/- as down payment against the total consideration of Rs.11,55,126/- as per agreement executed between the complainant and Gargo Motors. Per month EMI was fixed at Rs.35,000/- and the complainant had been paying the EMIs regularly.

            During continuation of the same, the complainant had to stop the vehicle from work due to mechanical defects w.e.f. 22.07.2012 and the vehicle was placed for repairmen in a garage at Naliapoor, Dibrugarh with intimation to the Financer with a request to consider the matter to pardon him for his failure to pay the installments for the month of August, September, October and November, 2012. On getting the information the Opposite Party, Financer rendered their full cooperation with the complainant and suggested him to pay the balance amount with the subsequent installments.

            On 24.12.2012 at about 2 P.M., while the driver of the vehicle was driving the same with a view to take it from the motor garage towards the house of the complainant, then on the way at Tamulikhat under Lahowal Police Station three persons stopped the vehicle identifying themselves as the agents of Gargo Motors snatched away the key of the vehicle from the driver illegally and forcefully. On objection raised by the driver, the three employees of Gargo Motors physically assaulted the driver and took away the truck leaving the driver alone in the street.

            On being aware of the incident the complainant immediately rushed to the office of Gargo Motors, Tinsukia on 25.12.2012. But unfortunately, the authority and staffs of Gargo Motors, inspite of repeated request and assurance by the complainant, refused to redeliver the vehicle to him unless and until the entire balance amount was paid by the complainant within seven days.

            The complainant had to suffer a lot due to the illegal and negligent performance of duty on the part of the Opposite Parties.

            The complainant claims that the Opposite Parties are liable for deficient and negligent services under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            The complainant has claimed that the act and attitude of the opposite parties were not only illegal but against the natural justice and law of the land also. They were aiming to deprive the complainant from his right over the vehicle in question and thereby caused wrongful loss to him in collusion with some vested interested persons who do not like him. If the opposite parties are not prevented from harassing the complainant from using the vehicle of carrying LPG cylinders for public service, he along with his customers at large will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Being compelled the complainant has instituted this case against the opposite parties with a prayer to direct them to hand over the vehicle to him as per law and not to threaten him from re-possessing the same illegally and forcefully. He has claimed that his vehicle was kept at the campus of Gargo Motors, Tinsukia by the opposite parties without any care and maintenance due to which a valuable property is going to be damaged gradually.

The complainant prays before the Forum/Commission to award the following reliefs to the complainant:

1. To direct the O.P. to deliver the possession of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.AS06AC/4202 to the complainant.
2. To pay a sum of ₹15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh) only for causing harassment and mental anguishment,
3. To pay a sum of ₹10,000/- only being the cost of the proceeding and
4. Any other relief/reliefs.

List of Exhibits:-

1. Certificate of Registration
2. Pollution under control Certificate.
3. Certificate of fitness.
4. Money receipt.

           In this case the opposite parties submitted their evidence in affidavit through its authorized Administrative Officer Shri Pranjal Kumar Neog. In their evidence the O.P. has stated that the complaint is not maintainable in law as well as on facts and barred by limitation. The case is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the complainant being a business man is not entitled to get any relief within the purview of Consumer Protection Act.

            The opposite party No.1 and 2 are dealers of TATA MOTORS and use to sell TATA vehicles. The complainant purchased one TATA vehicle which was registered as AS06AC/4201 on 28/09/2011. The complainant purchased the vehicle with finance from M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD.           After making payment of margin money to M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD. the complainant entered into a hire purchase agreement with M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD. and as per the terms and condition both the parties agreed upon. These opposite parties have no role to play for getting finance of the said vehicle by the complainant from M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD. and if the complainant is found defaulter on payment of installments of the financed vehicle was within M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD. and the complainant, where these opposite parties have no role to play.

            The facts narrated by the complainant against the opposite parties is based on imaginary story where these opposite parties were not at all involved in any manner and as such there was no reason to involve these opposite parties with the complaint made by the complainant. These opposite parties after getting the due consideration from the complainant delivered the vehicle to the complainant and after that the role of these opposite parties was over. The matter repayment of hire purchase installments if arises, is an exclusive affair of M/s TATA MOTORS and FINANCE LTD. and the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove that there was any role of financing of the vehicle, re-possession etc. These O.Ps. had no involvement at all and hence the complaint of the complainant be dismissed with an exemplary cost to meet the end of justice.

            The opposite parties in their evidence has further deposed that the registration of the vehicle and other documents of the complainant in connection with the vehicle in question will reflect the name of the financer and from that it will be established that the complainant without going through the documents of the vehicle has filed this case without any basis and the case is far from the truth and as such is liable to be dismissed.

            No written argument has been filed by either party. Only oral argument of O.Ps. was heard by the then President on 19.02.2016 and the case was fixed for judgement on 06.04.2016 without hearing complainant’s argument.

Now points to be decided

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties under the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case.
3. Whether the complaint was filed within the period of limitation.
4. Whether the opposite parties are liable for deficient and negligent service towards the complainant.
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed by him in his complaint petition.

Points decided and reasons thereof

1. The complainant purchased the vehicle in question from M/s Gargo Motors, Tinsukia through his financer “TATA MOTORS AND FINANCE LIMITED”. The complainant deposited a sum of ₹ 1,59,664/- to M/s Gargo Motors as down payment which was received on 03.10.2011 by Gargo Motors through their receipt No.19296. Complainant’s documents No.4, 5, 6, and 7 are certain receipts of payment of money paid by the complainant to the O.P. Seen that the O.Ps. received consideration from the complainant and as such the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

2. This Commission has both the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

 

3. From perusal of case record it seems that the complaint was filed within the period of limitation.

 

4. In deciding the liabilities of the opposite parties we have carefully examined the complaint petition, evidence led by the complainant and documents filed as documents/exhibits. At the same time we have gone through the W/S and evidence led by the opposite parties. It is observed that the opposite parties cleverly tried to evade their liability by deposing that they delivered the vehicle to the complainant after getting their due consideration from the him and after that their role was over and the matter of repayment of hire purchase installments, if arises, is an exclusive affairs of “M/s TATA MOTORS AND FINANCE LIMITED” and the complainant. From all the documents submitted by the complainant we have seen that Gargo Motors and “TATA MOTORS AND FINANCE LIMITED” at the time of incident was functioning in the same premises and as described by the complainant his vehicle was snatched away by some persons of Gargo Motors and kept the vehicle within the premises of Gargo Motors. These O.Ps. in their W/S or in evidence never denied the allegation of taking over the vehicle and keeping it in the premises of Gargo Motors. As the vehicle was, as allegedly snatched away by some persons of Gargo Motors and kept the vehicle in their premises, it was the duty of the O.Ps. to negotiate the matter in between the complainant and the financer if there was any default in payment of EMI by the complainant. Opposite parties have badly failed to establish that they were not involved in the matter. If the opposite parties were not involved in snatching away the vehicle of the complainant why they kept the vehicle in their custody. It is easily believable that the opposite parties in collusion with “TATA MOTORS AND FINANCE LIMITED” did all those acts illegally and without any information to the complainant. It was the duty of the opposite parties to show any documents, if any from the financer regarding default of payment of EMI for which instructed these opposite parties for taking over the vehicle from the possession of the complainant to justify their involvement in the matter.

From all above discussions it may be concluded that the opposite parties are liable in the eye of Consumer Protection Act.

5. Regarding eligibility of getting relief, compensation, we have seen that the complainant has failed to make the financer as an opposite party. Moreover, in his evidence in affidavit he has listed four documents, namely –

 

1. Certificate of Registration
2. Pollution under control Certificate.
3. Certificate of fitness and
4. Money receipt

But the complainant has miserably failed to bring the documents listed in his list of documents along with his complaint as exhibits in his own case and only the four documents which were shown to be exhibited as exhibits No. 1 to 4 are all xerox copies only which are not shown even as proved in original and those documents shown as exhibits were not signed by the then presiding officer for which those documents cannot be admissible as evidence in the eye of law.

Moreover, on careful perusal of case record we have seen that the complainant did not file any written argument to support his complaint. Order sheets reflects that earlier on 27.12.2012, the then President passed an order to register a Misc. case upon a petition filed by the complainant under Order 39, Rule 1, 2 r/w section 151 C.P.C. praying for restoring possession of disputed vehicle in favour of complainant which had been pulled back by goons. Accordingly, Misc. case No.06/2012 had been registered and order was passed accordingly against which the O.P. filed revision petition before the Hon’ble State Commission. Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 01.04.2014 had set aside the order of this Forum granting mandatory injunction vide order dated 12.02.2013 the Hon’ble State Commission hold that the jurisdiction under Order 39, Rule 1, 2 r/w section 151 of CPC is available for pure Civil Courts only. The complainant in this case has also failed to offer any written argument in his own case.

From all above discussions we are of the opinion that the complainant has badly failed to prove his own case and as such the case is liable to be dismissed.

The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed without any cost.

The instant C.C. No.40/2012 has been disposed of on contest.

            Copy of judgement and order be furnished to the complainant.