Order-17.
Date-13/03/2018.
c Shri Anupam Bhattacharyya, President.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, praying for direction upon OP1 not to take any action and/or possession of the vehicle No.2518 IL till disposal of the case and direction upon OP1 to submit their claim amount and compensation of Rs.1 lakh due to unfair trade practice and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant is a registered owner of vehicle No. 2518 IL which was fully cash purchased by the complainant on 31-03-2017 for Rs.15 lakhs from OP2 without taking any loan from OP1. From the Annual Tax Statement of the Income Tax Department certifying that OP2 collected the total amount of Rs.15 lakhs from the complainant Sudip Das. The complainant did not enter into a loan agreement bearing No.WCF 00581D dated 31-05-2017 with the OP1 for purchase of any goods vehicle No. 2518 IL BS III. In the year 2016 the complainant visited the office of OP1 bank for filing loan facility for purchasing goods vehicle AL 1616 IL when concerned bank officer obtained signature in complete agreement sheet before 27-06-2016 from the complainant to process formalities for sanctioning of vehicle AL 1616 IL and further directed the complainant to submit three signed blank cheques which he duly deposited. The OP1 has manufactured fake agreement dated 31-05-2017 and with unfair trade practice fabricated and manufactured documents reflecting value of the vehicle as Rs.19,46,000/- which is much more than the actual value of the vehicle of Rs.15 lakhs. The OP1 intentionally and deliberately violated the Forum’s order No.3 dated 29-11-2017 and Order No.3 dated 29-11-2017 and order No.6 dated 16-01-2018 and order No.9 dated 29-01-2018. The vehicle No. 2518 IL is lying idle and kept under the open sky from 07-01-2018 in the Ranaghat P.S. under illegal custody of OP1 of the vehicle No. 2518 IL and for that the complainant had to suffer a loss of Rs.5 lakhs. The complainant purchased the said vehicle No. 2518 IL by cash of Rs.15 lakhs and for that question of non-payment of loan amount does not arise. OP1 illegally possesses 3 cheques which were deposited by the complainant on earlier occasions and for such unfair trade practice the complainant has filed the instant case for compensation and return of vehicle. Hence, the instant complaint case.
Decision with Reasons
The case is taken up for ex parte against both the OPs 1 and 2.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced Evidence on Affidavit along with documents including Income Tax Department Form 26AS and tax invoice showing payment of cash of Rs.15 lakhs and other relevant documents in support of his case ex parte.
In this case the OP1 has not got any opportunity to revert the evidence as the case is taken up for ex parte against both OPs 1 and 2.
In the petition of complaint there is no specific prayer for return of vehicle but there was prayer for direction upon OP1 not to take any action and/or possession about the complainant’s vehicle No. 2518 IL and for compensation.
But in the evidence as well as from the record it is crystal clear that the vehicle No. 2518 IL is now under the custody of OP1 in the Ranaghat P.S. and it further appears that in this case on several occasions order was passed by this Forum for release of the vehicle but the said order was not complied with and it further appears that the matter is also pending in Misc. Case No.3646 of 2017 before the Ld. City Civil Court, Calcutta, 3rd Court.
On the date of hearing the OP1 had no scope to contest the case as the case was already fixed for hearing ex parte against him for non-submission of W.V. within the statutory period but he filed a petition informing that the matter is fixed before the Ld. City Civil Court on 14-03-2018 for report regarding transaction for purchasing the relevant vehicle.
The main case of the complainant is that the related vehicle No. 2518 IL which is under the custody of OP1 lying with Ranaghat P.S. was purchased by the complainant by cash and the relevant transaction is supported by tax invoice and also Income Tax Department 26AS form and the alleged loan agreement for purchasing the vehicle in question has been challenged by the complainant as fabricated by OP1.
Considering the evidence ex parte as to payment of cash for the vehicle No. 2518 IL and particularly for absence of any stay order from any higher authority particularly from the Ld. City Civil Court in Misc. Case No.3646 of 2017 and this complaint case being under C.P. Act for summary trial and for absence of any stay order and also considering the urgency of the matter as to release of vehicle which has been prima facie established by ex parte evidence as to purchase by cash we are of view that the complainant is entitled to get relief ex parte for return of vehicle. Regarding compensation the complainant has claimed in the complaint petition for Rs.1 lakh where in the evidence he has claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. For absence of cogent evidence as to loss suffered for detention of the vehicle we are of view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.
Considering the above discussions as a whole, we have no other alternative but to conclude that the complainant is entitled to get ex parte order for handing over the vehicle to the complainant by the OP1 along with compensation and litigation cost.
The concerned O.C., Ranaghat P.S. where the vehicle is lying being not the party to this case we are of view that we cannot pass any order directly to the O.C. Ranaghat P.S. for release of the vehicle. The OP1 Bank being the custodian of the vehicle we direct the OP1 to hand over the vehicle to the complainant within 7 days.
There being no specific relief of the complainant against OP2, the case be dismissed against OP2 ex parte.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed in part ex parte against OP1 and dismissed ex parte against OP2.
OP1 is directed to hand over the vehicle No. 2518 IL to the complainant which is lying with OC, Ranaghat P.S. within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which he is to pay penalty of Rs.300/- per day to the complainant till compliance.
The OP1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, in default, the OPs to pay fine at the rate of Rs.100/- per day delay and the amount so accumulated should be deposited to this Forum.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision of the C.P. Act.
