The instant case was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by one Mukter Hossain u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Forum which was registered as Consumer Case No. 59/18 in this Forum.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as the evidence is that the complainant is a self employed person residing at village Basthupi, P.O & P.S. Itahar Dist. Uttar Dinajpur within the jurisdiction of this Forum. It has been further stated that the complainant purchased a vehicle of Tata Winger with the financial assistance of O.P.No.1. At the time of purchase of the said vehicle the complainant made a down payment of Rs.1,90,000/- and deposit all necessary papers as required by the O.P. On submission of required documents the O.P.No.1 on being satisfied sanctioned the loan amount and issued a loan account statement. After that the loan amount was disbursed to the complainant and the complainant paid monthly installment regularly. But due to the sudden financial crisis the complainant was unable to make payment of the outstanding loan amount within the stipulated date and time. On 10.10.13 the O.P.No.1 through its agent pulled the vehicle without informing the complainant and the said vehicle was sold out to another person by the O.P.No.1. Thereafter the complainant sent several reminders to the O.P.No.1 for supplying loan statement but O.P.No.1 did not comply with rather  the O.P.No.1 sent a legal notice on 08.11.17 claiming outstanding loan amount of Rs.3,75,000/-. The complainant several time requested to O.P to supply the statement of account as regard to the loan but the O.P. did not supply any statement of account. As such there is deficiency and negligence and fraudulent trade practices by the O.P.No.1. Finding no other alternative the complainant lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, C.A and F.B.P., Uttar Dinajpur , Raiganj on 01.02.18 but no fruitful result came out. Thereafter the complainant filed this case before this Forum on 01.10.18 praying for return the vehicle and other reliefs as prayed for.  

The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing written version denying the materials allegations as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form of law. The case is completely barred by law of limitation. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and the petition is liable to be rejected and dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

The definite defence case is that the possession of the vehicle was taken by the bank on 10.10.13 and the said vehicle was sold on 31.12.13 after waiting almost two months under a belief that the complainant would clear out the loan amount immediately for getting back his vehicle. But the complainant never came to the office of O.P.No.1, for which the O.P. office made an auction to sale out the vehicle in question. The cause of action arose on 31.12.13 and the instant case was filed in the later part of 2018. Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

In order to prove the case the complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and he was cross examined in the form of questionnaires. In this case the O.P did not adduce any evidence to prove its defence.

Now the point for determination whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or not?

DECISION WITH REASONS:

At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P argued that the instant case is barred by law of limitation as because in the year 2013 the vehicle was sold. After the lapse of 5 years the instant case was filed but the Ld. Lawyer did not mentioned whether the O.P.No.1 sent the legal notice dt.08.11.17 claiming the outstanding loan amount. In the W.V in para 6 it has been stated “that the statements made in paragraph 6 is false except the fact that of legal demand was made by the opposite party bank which also proves that the complainant has in the most illegal manner filed this instant case without any basis at all”. But there is no definite denial that no legal notice sent on 18.11.17 by the O.P.No.1 to the complainant. So, the statement made by the complainant that on 18.11.17 the complainant sent legal notice is quite believable though the copy of legal notice has not been filed. Rather it has been admitted in the W.V that legal demand was made by the O.P. As and when legal notice was given on 18.11.17 from that period the instant case has been filed within the period of limitation. So, the instant case is not barred by law of limitation.

At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P submitted that the agreement was executed at Malda. So, the Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. But on perusal of the record it is found that the O.P.No.2/Indusind bank having its office at Raiganj. If the O.P. has any branch office at Raiganj and carries its banking business, so this Forum has got the jurisdiction to try the matter.

Now, let us consider whether the complainant was a defaulter or not. From the questionnaires filed by the O.P the complainant stated that out of 48 monthly installments he has paid only 21 installments. Moreover when the vehicle was pulled on i.e.10.10.13 the complainant did not lodge any complaint before police authority or any department. So from the cross examination of P.W.1 it is found that he has not paid 27 installments. So, as per agreement the O.P/Bank is realized the amount. But the manner in which the O.P/bank realized the amount is not convincing as because if the amount is due the O.P. can took the legal process for recovery of the loan amount not to take the vehicle from the road with the help of unauthorized person by force. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court have disapproved such manner of taking vehicles by force from the road without taking process of law. As and when it is found that a large number of installments were not paid by the customer, as such the customer has not come to the Forum with clean hand. So, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.     

Fees paid are correct,

Hence, it is

                                         ORDERED

That the complaint case being no. CC-59/18 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but without cost.

Let certified free copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost on proper application.