This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for direction upon O.P. to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner and to make an Ins. Policy of the vehicle and for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for unnecessary harassment and mental agony and also for litigation cost of Rs.40,000/-. Afterwards he amended the prayer praying for direction to take return the old vehicle and to supply a new one etc.

 The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased the vehicle bearing Registration No.WB65A/9357 which previously belonged to one Md. Saiful Islama at a proposed value of Rs.8,00000/-. O.P assured the petitioner that they will change the ownership of the vehicle from the previous owner and also make an Ins. Policy in the name of the petitioner. With that assurance he paid Rs.1,40,000/- as down payment and O.P arranged a bank loan of Rs.6,60,000/-. O.P also took Rs.17,000/- and Rs.16,000/- for the purpose of changing ownership and making Ins. Policy of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. On 24.07.14 O.P delivered the vehicle to the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner on several occasions contacted the O.P to the change the ownership and to make Ins. Policy etc. But O.P was without any response. In such circumstance he could not ply the vehicle on road and he is facing financial loss continuously. In the mean time petitioner already paid five instalment total of Rs.98,500/- in respect of loan amount. As the O.P did not take any steps, petitioner on 28.09.15 sent legal notice and thereafter filed this case with the above mentioned prayer. 

O.P. appeared and contested the case by filing written version and alleges that all the allegations of the complainant are false and that the complainant suppressed the material fact. That, the case is not maintainable. That, the petitioner is not a consumer and falsely claimed that he purchased the vehicle for self employment. That, the complainant is willful defaulter in making payment of instalments of loan and company will have to realize Rs.4, 58,705/- + 36% additional fine charges on the overdue amount. That, he last paid Rs.22, 500/- on 31.07.14 and after settlement of full amount O.P will issue Form 35 for deleting their names for hypothecation endorsement. As per hire purchase agreement non-payment of instalments and complainant using the vehicle for commercial purpose. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and O.P prays for dismissal of this case.

 To establish the case, complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him as P.W.-1 with some documents. The documents filed like copies of certificate of registration in the name of previous owner Md. Saiful Islam, loan statement, money receipt, instalment receipts, statement of account of previous owner and the legal notice. One Akram Ali is examined as P.W.2. 

O.P  adduce evidence of Deputy Manager Kuntal Biswas as O.P.W.1 and files documents like the copy of loan agreement dt.28.02.14 with the petitioner.

 DECISIONS WITH REASONS

 Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the lawyers of both sides, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

P.W.-1 in his examination in chief deposed that O.P proposed to sale the vehicle the truck to the petitioner which was previously in the name of Saiful Islam. The value of the vehicle fixed at Rs.8,00,000/- and petitioner paid Rs.1,40,000/- as down payment. O.P/Bank also arranged a loan of Rs.6,60,000/- and O.P further took Rs.17,000/- and Rs.16,000/- for changing the ownership in favour of the petitioner and also for Ins. Policy. The vehicle was delivered on 14.07.14. Petitioner contacted O.P/Bank on several occasions for changing the registration of the vehicle and Ins. Policy in his favour but with no result. That, petitioner is not defaulter and O.P will not entitled to Rs.4, 57,705/- + 36% additional fine etc. as alleged. That, O.P admitted that the last payment of instalment of Rs.22,500/- paid on 31.07.14. P.W.2 was a witness to the loan agreement with O.P/Bank deposed accordingly supporting P.W.1. That, petitioner is not in a position to ply the vehicle for non registration and also for not having Insurance policy and therefore facing financial loss. That, O.P assured to the complainant at the time of agreement to supply R.C.Book of the vehicle, Ins. Certificate, Tax Receipts etc.

However, regarding payment of Rs.17,000/- and Rs.16,000/-, petitioner claims that he paid for changing the ownership of the vehicle  and for effecting Ins. Policy over the same , we do not find any cogent documentary evidence like receipts. O.Ps also flatly denied they  received such amount from petitioner.

From the documents filed by the parties it is clear that there was a loan agreement between the parties of Rs.6,60,00/- for the said vehicle.  Petitioner stated in the petition   that the value of the said vehicle was fixed at Rs.8,00,000/- and a down payment was made Rs.1,40,000/- and the remaining amount Rs.6,60,000/- against a bank loan payable  by 48 instalment as per agreement of the of loan. However, O.Ps never denied this fact of down payment of Rs.1,40,000/- on that day of agreement of loan.  O.P did not deny this fact in his W.V as well as in his evidence as O.P.W.1. The case of the O.P is that the petitioner failed to repay the loan as per the agreement. The statement of account of the petitioner in the O.P/Bank has been filed by the O.P wherein it is noted that a sum of Rs.1,01,000/- is paid as instalments of loan by the complainant up to 30.08.14 . O.P.W.1 in his examination in chief stated this fact supported by statement of Account of complainant in the O.P/Bank. O.P.W.1 further stated that a total outstanding amount lying Rs.8,75,173/- as on 22.07.16 against the total loan agreement value of the hirer is Rs.9, 50,800/-.

The statement of account and other documents of the previous owner Saiful Islam are also filed. The petitioner could not ply the vehicle in the road as O.P/Bank inspite of assurance given to the complainant failed to effect the registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant and no Ins. Policy was also made in the name of the complainant over the vehicle. In such a circumstances petitioner faces huge financial loss and mental pain as well. Moreover, the vehicle is getting damaged day by day being not in use. Ld.lawyer of O.P argues that petitioner fails to pay outstanding dues and therefore Company is not in a position to issue Form-35 for deleting their name from Hypothecation Endorsement. This argument is not tenable as the O.P effected the sale of a repossessed vehicle against bank loan and receiving down payment of Rs.1,40,000/-. But the registration was not effected in the name of the complainant. In such a circumstances, the petitioner suffered a heavy loss which I already mentioned. Therefore O.P/Bank was very much negligent and deficient in service in giving delivery of the said repossessed vehicle free from all in cumbrances.

In our case we find that petitioner has been able to prove by sufficient and documentary evidence that O.P proposed to sale the repossessed the vehicle WB65A/9357 at Rs.8,00,000/-. That the vehicle was registered previously in the name of Saiful Islam. Petitioner has also proved that a loan agreement was signed for Rs.6,60,000/- and down payment was made Rs.1,40,000/-.That it is also proved that he paid five  instalments of loan  and O.P admits that he paid Rs.1,01,000/- by such instalments. As the petitioner was not in a position to ply the vehicle without valid registration and Insurance coverage in his favour, Therefore, petitioner is entitled to get relief from this Forum. O.P cannot avoid its liability for such financial loss and harassment of the petitioner.

In the light of our above discussion this Form finds that the petitioner has been able to prove his case and he is entitled to get relief accordingly.

 Fees paid are correct. 

Hence it is,

ORDERED

That the case being No.CC-85/2015 is allowed on contest but in part. O.Ps are directed to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner so that the vehicle WB65A/9357 is registered in the name of the petitioner and enabling the petitioner to purchase a policy of Insurance in respect of the vehicle within one month of passing of this order, or in alternate, to take back the vehicle and to refund the money paid by the complainant to the O.P i.e. Rs.1,40,000/- plus Rs.1,01,000/-, total Rs.2,41,000/- with 9% interest from the date of agreement i.e. 28.02.14 till realization, within one month of passing of this order.

O.P is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for unnecessary mental harassment and agony and also to pay a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within one month of passing of this order, otherwise  the petitioner is at liberty to proceed as per law.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.