JUDGEMENT

The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Sanjoy Kumar Mandal S/O. Gobinda Chandra Mandal, Vill: Danga Matail, P.O. Panchpara, Dist: Malda (W.B.) and the said petition was filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the same petition was registered before this Forum now Commission as Consumer Case No. 93/2015.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant Sanjoy Mandal agreed to take loan from the O.P. i.e. Indusind Bank upon much persuasion from the Bank Authority. The Branch Manager asked the complainant to sign on some printed documents but the Bank Manager did not allow him to go through the contents of the documents.

It has been further stated that after signing all the documents the Branch Manager approved the loan proposal of the complainant. After sanction of loan the complainant purchased Bajaj Platinum Motor Cycle bearing Chassis No. MD2DDDZZZRWC18874 and Engine Number DUMBRC 29160 from Gazole Automobile on 25/08/2008. The complainant paid Rs. 39,690/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Only) to the seller of the said motor cycle.

It has been further stated that the complainant was very particular in payment of monthly equal installments EMIS. The complainant never refused to pay the installment due to the O.P. Bank.  

On 25/08/2015 the O.P. Bank sent some recovery agent who tried to take the forcible possession of the said vehicle bearing Regn No. WB66F 6315 but due to the protest of the complainant and his neighbours, the attempt of the O.P. Bank was in vain.

  The complainant on 25/08/2015 approached to the Branch Manager to take N.O.C. after paying the sum which is due but the O.P. Bank refused to accept the money and also refused to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC). After the incidence the complainant himself approached to the Gazole P.S. for filing the written complaint against the O.P. Bank but police officials advised the complainant to file before the Consumer Forum now Commission. As such the complainant has come to this Forum now Commission for compensation for causing mental agony and harassment amounting to Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand Only) and litigation cost and any other relief.

The petition has been contested by the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 by filing the written version and denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 contending inter alia that the complainant has no cause of action to institute the case and the petition of complaint is not maintainable in accordance with the law, the case is barred by law of limitation

The further defense case is that the complainant was defaulter in payment of EMI.  The complainant will get a total amount of Rs.23,756/-(Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Six Only)  which includes the last payment charges including the principal amount and as per terms and agreement the O.P. may approach to the arbitrator for recovery of the said amount.

The further defense case is that the complainant  is not at all a ‘Consumer’ under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 Concerning such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

        The O.P. No. 3 contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.P. No.3 i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. The case is bad for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties and non-joinder of necessary parties.

  The definite defense case is that the complainant was a defaulter in payment of monthly dues. The case has been filed with a view to harass the O.Ps. Concerning such facts and circumstances the case is liable to be dismissed.

               In order to prove the case the complainant was himself examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined. No other witness was examined.

                 On the other hand one Debashis Oraom was examined as O.P.W.-1 on behalf of Indusind Bank. No other witness was examined.

                  During trial the O.P. Bank marked the documents from Ext. A to Ext. C. The complainant also filed some documents during trial .

                   In this case the Bajaj Allianz Company did not adduce any evidence.

                Now the point for determination:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submitted that the O.P. bank forcibly tried to take possession of the vehicle but the said attempt of the bank was baffled by the complainant with the help of the neighbouring person of the complainant. 

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the Indusind Bank argued that such false story has been created as the complainant was a defaulter and the loan has not been cleared. The complainant did not file any document to show that the Bank Authority tried to take forcible possession. No FIR has been filed in this regard. Moreover, no independent witness has been examined by the complainant to prove such fact. So it is very difficult to hold that the Bank Authority tried to take forcible possession of the vehicle.

  The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that the NOC may be issued. Though in the petition of complaint there is no prayer for granting NOC.

   The Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. No.2 argued that P.W.-1 i.e. the complainant admitted in cross-examination that that he did not pay Rs.39,960/-(Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Only) to the seller and he also admitted that Rs. 24,281/-(Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Eighty One Only) was unpaid and he also admitted that he will not make any payment to the bank.

     Considering such facts and circumstances as and when the complainant is a defaulter in payment of dues as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

                                                           C.F  paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

the case be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 1, 000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) against the O.P. No.2.  The case is also dismissed against O.P. No.3 without any cost.

                                    Let a copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.

Order No.64 dt.20-01-2021

                                   Today the record is put up on the basis of a petition filed by the Indusind Bank.

                                  Hd. the Ld. Lawyer of the Bank submits the case has been dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.1000/- against the OP No.-2.

                                  The Ld. Lawyer of the OP No.-2 has prayed for clearification as to the matter who will pay the cost.

                                                                                          It is cleared

The case has been dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.1000/- against the OP No.-2

Its means that the Complainant will pay the cost of Rs.1000/-(One Thousand) to the OP No.-2.

OP No.-2 will not pay.

It has been furthered ordered that the case is also dismissed againest OP No.-3 without any cost.

So, it is cleared that complainant will pay the cost of Rs.1000/- to the OP No.-2.