JUDGEMENT Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that she availed of a loan of Rs. 8,08,895/- vide Customer Proposal No. PG/0067/R/10/000131 on 12.03.2012 to purchase a Truck TATA Motors Ltd. and LPT2515 4800MM WB in terms to repay the loan in 46 equated monthly installments (EMI) for Rs. 27,940/- each EMI and for that purpose she made down payment of Rs. 20,4000/- and complainant purchased TATA Motor Car having Registration No. WB-33A-4869 to earn her livelihood and as self-employed person and said registration number was issued by RTO, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur. But suddenly on 20.12.2012 at around 02:30 hours some miscreants forcible taken away the said vehicle along with all documents of the said vehicle and other related papers from the road side at Haldia area by injuring the driver and the matter was reported to Durgachak Police Station on 20.12.2012 and after investigation police recovered the vehicle without any related documents which was in the said truck. Thereafter on 18.01.2013 vehicle was released by Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in favour of the complainant. Complainant informed op about the above incident by a letter dated 22.12.2012 whereas the incident took place on 20.12.2012 and complainant has paid EMIs till 17th installment which was due on 01.08.2013 and several times complainant requested the op to issue NOC to get duplicate registration documents, tax token, fitness certificate etc. but op did not pay any heed for which the truck could not be run on public road and for her livelihood and for want of those connected documents. After making several requests from 18.01.2013 op has not issued NOC to get duplicate registration documents, tax token, fitness certificate, insurance policy and other related documents from the RTO to enable complainant to run her truck to earn her livelihood, though complainant has paid EMIs till 17th installments. Subsequently on 11.11.2013 complainant again sent a letter to the op demanding to pay the loss incurred by her due to deficiency in service on the part of the op. But op kept silent. In the above circumstances complainant prayed for compensation and other relief. On the other hand op by filing written version submitted that all the allegations are false and fabricated that op has no connection of such snatching or theft of vehicle and complainant never submitted any such paper for NOC as required for getting relief to such vehicle and complainant has failed to prove that she applied for registration copy etc. and NOC in respect of the vehicle and there was no laches on the part of the op and for which the present complaint should be dismissed and the claim of the complainant is completely frivolous and so the complaint should be dismissed. Decision with reasons On proper study of the complaint and written version and also hearing the Ld. Lawyer for the op, it is found that op has taken a false plea before this Forum that he never received any such letter from the complainant that the theft was committed in respect of the said vehicle and all related documents to the said vehicle was stolen or no such prayer was made by the complainant to the op for issuing NOC or etc. In view of the fact that it is proved by Annexure-D dated 22.12.2012 that complainant sent registered letter through postal authority to the op and it was not returned back to the complainant. So, it is proved that it was received by the op, But anyhow op is denying the fact and in view of the fact apparently the negligence and deficiency on the part of the op is proved. Similarly it is found on 11.11.2013 complainant sent another letter by Speed Post and it was not received back by the complainant. Then it is clear that op received that letter but op did not issue any NOC for collecting the document related to the said vehicle when it is proved that op received it but op tried to deny all those allegation of the complainant and this is the common practice of the private financers/business men in all respect and it is their business anyhow to grab the money, anyhow to sell the vehicle of the lonee member and throw him into the dustbin and that is the practice of MAGMA FINCROP and other financers. But truth is that complainant till the month of commission of theft of the vehicle paid regularly the monthly EMI and that is not denied. But when that vehicle was stolen along with all relevant documents and subsequently it was recovered by the police and thereafter it was not possible for the complainant to ply it for want of all documents. Truth is that complainant forthwith on 22.12.2012 reported the op about the said commission of theft and also all action related to the fact was sent to the op and complainant requested the op for taking necessary measure. But op was sitting idle and in India all the financial institutions are Kabuliwalas and practically they are here and there for giving loan but not to cooperate with the lonee member. Though truth is that the complainant is trustee in respect of the vehicle and that vehicle is mortgaged to the op. So, it is the duty of the op to bring out all duplicate copies related to the vehicle so that complainant can run the vehicle and to pay the entire amount which are outstanding dues at this stage and truth is that for the laches on the part of the op, complainant is unable to run the said vehicle and unable to pay EMIs. Most interesting factor is that op is a financer and still he is the title holder of the said vehicle and it is the bounden duty and obligation to take immediate action for bringing out duplicate copies related to the said vehicle for proper running. But anyhow op did not discharge his duties and practically for op’s fault, complainant has been suffered much and truth is that this dishonest op denied the of and receiving all those documents and tried to convince that he is innocent but his innocence is proved a false story rather it is proved that op has acted illegally and without discharging his liability. So, in the circumstances, it is proved that no doubt complainant has been harassed by the op and practically as per law complainant is trustee, he informed the matter to the op and it is the duty of op to bring out the same. Considering all the above fact and materials we are convinced to hold that no doubt for the laches, negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the op, complainant has been harassed and no doubt complainant has been suffered much financial loss because for want of that duplicate documents she is not in a position to run the vehicle to earn her livelihood and at the same time for the laches of the op the actual title holder/owner of the vehicle at this stage and for not discharging their duties and though she sent all the relevant documents regarding commission of theft i.e. FIR, prayer for to do needful, but op did not take any step though it was reported within two days from commission of theft, the complainant is hopeless. Thereafter complainant after recovery of the vehicle reported the matter to the op and sent prayer for NOC for such documents related to the vehicle but that was also not honoured and that is the position and tactics of the Kabuliwalas/financial institution. They have their no morality, no social responsibility as traders. But it is known to all legally it is the duty of the op to collect duplicate copy of those documents related to truck because till now he is the owner of the vehicle legally as it is mortgaged to the op. So, op cannot deny all his liability by any means. In the light of the above findings and also the materials we are convinced to hold that op has no doubt harassed the complainant in so many manners and caused financial loss for which this present complaint succeeds. Hence, it is ORDERED That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 10,000/- against the op. Op is hereby directed to collect all documents related to the said vehicle, (duplicate copy of all documents) related to present vehicle bearing No. WB-33A 4869 from different authorities at once at the cost of the op and hand over it within 15 days from the date of this order and if op fails to comply that order in that case op shall have to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- per day for non-compliance of the order. But other compensation as prayed by the complainant is refused and this order is passed considering the negligence and deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the op. Op is hereby directed to comply the order within 15 days failing which penal action shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine may be imposed.
| [HON'ABLE MR. Ashok Kumar Chanda] MEMBER[HON'ABLE MR. Bipin Mukhopadhyay] PRESIDENT[HON'ABLE MRS. Sangita Paul] MEMBER | |