C.C. No.318/2023

Sukadev Mallick,

S/o. Amareswar Mallick,

Vill./P.O.- Sareikula,

P.S.- Naugaon,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.                                                …………. Complainant

                            (Versus)

1. Lal Bahadur Rahim,

Branch Manager,

Gita Motors, dealing with TVS selling.

2. Debases Sahani,

(Associate of Opp. Party No.1),

Gita Motors,

Both are At- Durgabazar,

P.O./P.S./Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.

3. TVS Credit service Ltd.,

At- 2^nd Floor, Creative Plaza,

Commercial Complex, Rasulgarh Square,

Bhubaneswar- 751010,

Dist.- Khurda. …..… Opposite parties

For Complainant………..Mr. S.N. Mishra, Advocate

For Opposite Parties………..Mr. S.K. Naik, Advocate

ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                      JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to release the vehicle and pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-”.

            Brief fact of the case is that initially the complainant filed the consumer complaint impleading opposite parties No.1 & 2 and as per order dtd.01.12.2023 the opposite party No.3 was impleaded as opposite party and same counsel Mr. S.K. Naik appeared on 04.01.2024 for opposite party No.3 i.e. the financer.  

            The brief fact leading to the case is that complainant had purchased TVS Suzuki Scooty from opposite parties on 12.6.2020 by depositing Rs.40,000/-  i.e. Rs.37,316/- deposit amount plus Rs.3,300/- processing charge. The asset was shown as Rs.99,000/- but finance amount was shown Rs.88,900/- and complainant was due to pay Rs.3,506/- in each month w.e.f. 03.8.2020 to 03.6.2023 i.e. in 35 installments amounting Rs.1,22,710/-  (Rs.3,506/- X 35). The cost of vehicle including CGST & SGST is Rs.99,000/- and when complainant has paid Rs.37,316/- as initial deposit we fail to understand how the finance amount becomes Rs.88,900/- in purchasing a vehicle which costs only Rs.99,000/-, when complainant not only paid Rs.37,316/- as initial deposit but also paid Rs.3,300/- as processing charge and at the eleventh movement repossess the vehicle and sold it (opposite parties claims to have sold) without following due process of law as stipulated under Rule 51 of M.V. Act and settled position of law by our own High court that without following due process of Section 51 (5) the vehicle cannot be transferred/sold to a third party by the financer. So the entire process of recovery as claimed by complainant is found to be incorrect.  

            The opposite parties No.1 & 2 have been added in personal capacity being the staff of opposite party No.3 who has done the mischief. Opposite party No.3 though appeared on 04.01.2024 has not filed any written version and there is no satisfactory reply except stating that complainant is not a consumer as defined U/s.2(5) (should have been 2(7)) of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 is one of the staff of opposite party No.3 and in the capacity of Branch Manager, and staff (agent) of opposite parties No.1 and 2 have dealt with the complainant, rather the complainant has alleged personally against opposite parties No.1 & 2. The opposite parties have financed Rs.88,900/- (including interest) but taken Rs.37,316/- as initial deposit for a Scooty of Rs.99,000/- but as to how it was Rs.1,22,710/- is not explained by opposite parties. So the entire action of opposite parties demanding excess amount than it should have been amounts to unfair trade practice and selling the vehicle without following the procedure as laid down U/s.51(5) of M.V. Act amounts to harassment to the consumer.

            We therefore award cost of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation which shall be adjusted towards pending loan. The opposite parties are directed to return the vehicle within a month with NOC, failing which opposite parties shall pay cost of Rs.70,000/- to complainant and keep the vehicle and sell it to the auction purchaser following due process of law. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of.  

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 17^th May,2024.