West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/115/2011

Sri Soumen Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Fincrop. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No. 115/2011                                                         Date of disposal: 26/04/2012                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. P. K. Sarkar.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. D. Sengupta.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S. Bhattacharya.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. Guine

            Sri Soumen Das S/o-Late Jogesh Das, Vill-Bahurupa, P.O. & P.S.-Narayangarh, Dist-

            Paschim Medinipur………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. Magma Fincrop. Ltd., Magma House, 24, Park Street, Kolkata-700016
2. The Manager, Magma Fincrop. Ltd., at Inda, Kamala Cabin, P.O.-Kharagpur, P.S.-Kharagpur (T),   Dist-Paschim Medinipur…………………Ops.

            The complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows :-

            The complainant purchased the Mini Bus registered as WB-33A/2289 after taking  loan from the Op-Magma Fin. crop Ltd and subsequently he repaid the loan in terms of agreement entered by him with the Ops and demanded the clearance certificate from the Op. No.1. Though the Op. No.1 assured the complainant to issue the clearance certificate in the matter of loan taken by him, but on 07/12/10, the complainant received the letter dated 03/12/10 from the Op. No.2, wherein the Op. No.2 illegally demanded an outstanding dues from the complainant and threatened to take legal action against the complainant, unless the complainant paid the outstanding dues within 7 days of receipt of the notice.  On receipt of such letter, the complainant asked the Ops. to initiate arbitration proceedings in the matter of the outstanding dues payable by the complainant but the Ops. neither initiated any arbitration proceeding nor issued the clearance certificate demanded by the complainant. As  such the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for issuance of direction upon the Ops. to issue clearance certificate in the matter of loan taken by the complainant, and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment of the complainant and to pay a litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.

               The Ops. contested the case by filing their W/O contending inter alia that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant; that for failure of the complainant to pay the monthly installments in terms of the loan agreement entered by him with the Ops., there is an outstanding dues of Rs.55,032.27/- paisa payable by the complainant towards

Contd………….P/2

- ( 2 ) -

the loan taken by him;  and that they are entitled to take possession of the vehicle in question in exercise of their right under the loan agreement. Accordingly the Ops sought for dismissal of the complaint.    

 The points for decisions are :

     (1)Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the section   2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?

     (2)Whether the Ops. were deficient in service or guilty of unfair trade practices  within  the meaning of section 2 (1)(g) read with section 2(1)(o) of the C. P. Act, 1986 ?  

     (3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for ?   

                    Decisions with reasons :

Point no. 1.

              The complainant filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency of service of the Ops for not issuing clearance certificate in spite repayment of loan taken by him from the Ops to purchase the Mini Bus registered as WB-33A/2289. The Ops contested the case by filing their written statement contending inter alia that there was an outstanding dues of Rs.55,032.27/- paisa payable by the complainant towards the loan taken by him from the Ops.  Under the given facts and circumstances, the complainant must be held to be a consumer of the Ops, in view of the provision of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) read with sections 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and this Forum has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue raised by the complainant.

Point nos. 2 & 3.

                 It is not disputed that the complainant took a loan of Rs.4,37,000/- under the hire purchase agreement dated 29/3/2006 in respect of the Mini Bus registered as WB-33A/2289, with the stipulation that he would repay the loan with interest thereon amounting to Rs.5, 65,550/- by 47 installments @ Rs.12,033/- per month.  According to the complainant, he paid all the installments payable by him as par said hire purchase agreement, but the Ops. No.1 failed and neglected to issue the no due certificate demanded by the complainant.  The copy of the letter dated 3/12/2010 ( Ext. 4) issued by the Op-financing co. disclosed  that in spite of payment of Rs.5,85,866/- by the complainant towards the loan and its interest, they claimed further sum of Rs.53,834.83/- paisa on account of delay payment charges and insurance premiums allegedly paid by them. The receipts filed by the complainant disclosed that the Ops occasionally realized delay payment charges from the complainant and admittedly the received additional amount of Rs.20,315/-( Rs.5,85,866/ - Rs.5,65,551/-) towards the delay payment charges. As such further claim of Rs.35,007.83/- paisa by the Ops as delay payment charges in their letter dated 03/12/2010 appears to be unjustified, and unreasonable.   The Ops claimed Rs.39,142/- towards other charges including insurance charges in their letter dated 03/12/2010, whereas in their statement of

Contd………….P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

account marked Exhibit E, they claimed Rs.30, 642/- for the insurance charges allegedly paid by them in respect of the vehicle in question. The Ops  failed to explain why they claimed Rs.39,142/- in their letter dated 03/12/2010 as other charges including the insurance charges of Rs.30,642/-. Be that as it may, the Ops have failed to produce any material to show that they paid the premiums for insurance of the vehicle in question during the period of hiring of the vehicle. Rather the copies of the Insurance policies filed by the complainant marked Exhibit 3 series disclosed that the complainant got the vehicle in question insured during the period of hiring through the Ops., as stipulated in the hire purchase agreement dated 29/3/2006. As such the claim by the Ops. that they paid the insurance premiums in respect of the vehicle in question during the period of hiring of the vehicle, cannot be accepted in absence of any evidence regarding such payment by them. It may be noted that, as par terms of the hire purchase agreement, the complainant was liable to get the vehicle in question insured through the Ops. during the period of hiring and as such the Ops. were not liable to pay premiums for the insurance of the vehicle.  So there are enough reasons to hold that the complainant paid the entire amount of loan with interest thereon and the admissible delay payment charges as par hire purchase agreement entered by him with the Ops. in respect of the vehicle in question, and that the Ops. has got no justification to withhold the no due certificate demanded by the complainant. As such we propose to direct the Ops. to issue  the no due certificate  in matter of loan taken by the complainant under the hire purchase agreement dated 29/3/2006 in respect of the Mini Bus registered as WB-33A/2289 and to pay a litigation cost of Rs.3,000/ to the complainant.

                                     Hence,

                                                it is ordered,

                                                                     that the complaint be allowed on contest. The Ops. are directed   to issue the no due certificate in matter of loan taken by the complainant under the hire purchase agreement dated 29/3/2006 in respect of the Mini Bus registered as WB-33A/2289 and to pay a litigation cost of Rs.3,000/ to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of communication of this judgement, failing which they are liable to pay a fine of Rs.50/- per diem till compliance of this order.            

Let the copies of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost. 

Dic. & Corrected by me

                                                              I agree                      

              

           President                                   Member                                       President

                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.