The instant case was started on the basis of a petition under Section 12 of the Consumer protection act, 1986 which was registered as Consumer Case No. 85/16 in this Forum.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant/petitioner Taimur Hussian, is an self employed person having his residence at Vill- Kabargari, P.O. Duarin, P.S. Karandighi Dist-Uttar Dinajpur within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

The complainant/petitioner intended to purchase a vehicle for the purpose of personal use and the O.P concern made a proposal to the complainant to purchase a vehicle namely INDICA VISTA LS OF TATA MOTORS of which Chassis No. MAT608535DLH21508 and Engine No. 4751DT144WYP43986 and the value of the said vehicle has been fixed at Rs. 4,77,356/- and cost of registration of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 8500/- for agreement charge and other expenses.

After getting such assurance from the O.P the complainant/petitioner showing his willingness to buy the said vehicle paid a sum of Rs. 1,06,521.00/- as down payment, and Rs. 40,000/- for New Registration Charge and Rs. 8500/- for agreement Charge and other expenses in respect of the said vehicle.

The O.P.No.1 also makes arrangement for a loan of Rs. 349335/-and make an insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle respectively.

On 18/4/2014 the petitioner paid the total amount of Rs. 1, 55,021/- and after the payment of the said amount the O.P.No.2 delivered the vehicle to the complainant/petitioner on 25/04/2014 with a delivery challan.

After getting the said vehicle on several occasions the petitioner went to the office of the O.P.No.2 with a request to hand over all the papers relating to the ownership of the vehicle but no fruitful result came out from the O.P concern.

It has been further stated that due to the want of necessary documents/papers the complainant/petitioner could not able to ply his vehicle on road for which he is facing great financial loss continuously.

It has been further stated that the complainant/petitioner has already paid the installments regularly in respect of loan amount to the O.P.No.1.

There after the complainant/petitioner visited the O.P. office on several occasions but the O.P did not hand over the necessary documents as regard to the ownership of the vehicle to the complainant and the O.P did not make any insurance of the said vehicle though the O.P. has received of Rs. 48,500/- for the insurance charges.

There after the petitioner/complainant send a legal notice dated 10-09-2016 to the O.P.s for supplying the said documents but there was no fruitful result came out from the O.P. concern.

The petition has been contested by the O.P. No.1 and 3 that is Indusind bank Limited by filling the W.V. denying all the material allegations as leveled against the bank authority contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (b) of the Consumer protection Act,1986. The definite defence case is that the complainant is always defaulter in payment of E.M.I. The complainant did not pay any E.M.I. from the month of August, September, October and January and for which a sum of Rs. 16,150.13/-is over due to the company as on date and the company will get Rs. 1,87,608.16+36% additional fine charges on the overdue amount of Rs. 16,150.13/- plus future due amounting to Rs. 1,71,458.03/-.

The further defence case is that the complainant lastly paid Rs. 36,000/- on 4/02/2017. The O.P. approached the complainant several times to clear the total overdue amount, but the complainant did not pay any amount on the request of the O.P. As such the petitioner/complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The O.P.No.2 that is The Lexicon Motors has been contested by filling the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.P.s contending inter alia that the present case is not maintainable as the complainant has suppressed the real facts.

And this forum has got no jurisdiction to try the case as the O.P.No.2 does not carry its business or family resides within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

The further defence case is that Rs. 96,521.00/-is still payable by the complainant to this O.P. The complainant did not pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 96,521.00/- and the O.P.No.2 did not hand over the ownership papers to the complainant.

The further defence case is that the delivery of the said vehicle was given by the Lexicon Motors to the complainant on verbal requests of the complainant that there was a marriage function in the complainant’s family and as such the complainant required the said car urgently and the complainant would positively pay the balance sum of Rs.96, 521/- within 10 days. But the complainant did not pay the amount hence the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

During trial the complainant was examined as PW1 and he is cross examined. On the other hand Mr. Sanjib Kumar Layek was examined as O.P.W and he is also cross examined. Both parties filed the documents.

DECISION WITH REASONS

The complainant has prayed for directions upon the opposite party for supplying of registration certificate in the name of the complainant (Taimur Hossain) in respect of the vehicle in question. The complainant has paid the arrear dues. At the time of argument the Learned Lawyer of the O.P.No.2 and other O.P.s argued that Rs. 96581/- is still due to the O.P. No. 2. How, the complainant can get a direction from this Forum for supplying of registration certificate. Now the question comes for consideration whether Rs.96521 is still due or not. In the cross examination the complainant has admitted that Rs. 96521/- is still due. Thereafter, then says he (complainant) has paid the full amount but no document has been filed and proved that the complainant has paid the amount of Rs. 96521/- to the O.P.No.2 that is Lexicon Motors. No documents have been filed by the complainant to show that he has paid the amount to the O.P.No.1 unless and until no document is filed by the complainant to show that he has paid the full amount, how the Forum can believe the oral testimony of P.W.1 that he did  pay the amount. So, in such circumstances this Forum to believe that the complainant had not paid the amount of Rs. 96521/- to the O.P.No.2. Moreover, from the cross examination of complainant by O.P.No.1 and 3 (Bank Authority) it is found that he has only paid the processing fee to the O.P.No.1 and 3 for sanctioning the loan. So considering such facts and circumstances the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as he is a defaulter in payment of Loan Accounts and other charges.

C.F. paid is correct

Hence, it is

                                                ORDERED

That the instant case being no. CC-85/16 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.