Haryana

StateCommission

A/276/2015

VINOD SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAGMA LEASING CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAVINDER ARORA

26 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    276 of 2015

Date of Institution:    24.03.2015

Date of Decision :     26.05.2016

 

Vinod Sharma s/o Sh. Ram Nath, Resident of Village and Post Office  Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Magma Leasing Company Limited, 167/18, IInd Floor, Sadar Bazar, New Vijay Rattan Chowk, Ambala Cantt through its Managing Director/Office Incharge.

2.      Magma Leasing Company Limited Magma House, 24, Park Street, Kolkata-700016.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Appellant in person with Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate. 

                             None for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the order dated March 5^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.410 of 2010.

2.      Vinod Sharma-complainant/appellant, purchased a car (Tata Spacio) from Magma Leasing Company Limited-Opposite Parties/respondents, on December 12^th, 2006. This car was purchased by one Sulakhan Singh son of Sunder Singh Resident of Paonta Sahib by raising loan from the respondents. Sulakhan Singh could not repay the instalments of the financed amount and for that reason the respondents seized the car and later it was sold to the complainant/appellant. However, the car not being transferred in the name of the complainant, complaint bearing No.340 of 2007, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The District Forum vide order dated 06.10.2008 dismissed the complaint, however direction was given to the respondents to arrange and provide the requisite documents for transfer/registration of the car in the name of the complainant.

4.      As per the order of the District Forum, the complainant visited the respondents time and again but nothing was done. Hence execution application was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Ambala. The opposite party/appellant supplied certain documents on 07.06.2010 and the execution application was dismissed as satisfied.

5.      The complainant/appellant visited the office of the Registering Authority alongwith the necessary documents but the registering authority refused to register the car in favour of the complainant on the ground that on the basis of the documents produced by the complainant, the car could not be transferred by the Registering Authority in favour of complainant.

6.      During this period the registered owner of the car (Sulakhan Singh) expired and NOC in the shape of affidavit was taken from the legal heirs of deceased Sulakhan Singh. However, the NOC/affidavit was issued by the legal heirs of Sulakhan Singh in favour of Magma Finance Limited-Opposite Parties and not in favour of the complainant. The complainant requested the respondents to secure the NOC/affidavit of the legal heirs of deceased Sulakhan Singh in favour of complainant but to no avail.  Forced by these circumstances, the complainant filed the instant complaint bearing No.410 of 2010.

7.      The District Forum vide impugned order dated March 5^th, 2015 dismissed the complaint.

8.      On August 10^th, 2015, during the hearing of this appeal following order was passed:-

“The Vehicle No.HP17A-2381 was in the name of Sulakhan Singh Pradesi.  The vehicle was financed with Magma Leasing Company Limited.  Sulakhan Singh surrendered the vehicle to the Finance Company because he could not pay the installments regularly.  Vinod Sharma-complainant purchased the vehicle from the Finance Company on 12^th December, 2006.  Sulakhan Singh died in the year 2007.  He left behind the legal representatives, who filed affidavit (Annexure C-4) stating that they have no objection if the vehicle is transferred in the name of Finance Company.  The Finance Company has also given No Objection Certificate to Vinod Sharma that it has no objection if the vehicle is transferred in his name.  Till date registration certificate stands in the name of Sulakhan Singh, inspite of best efforts made by Vinod Sharma to get it transferred in his name.  The Finance Company is still ready to give the No Objection Certificate with regard to the transfer of the vehicle in the name of Vinod Sharma-complainant. 

In view of this, learned counsel for the respondents-Finance Company is hereby asked to call some responsible official of the Finance Company who can issue the No Objection Certificate in favour of Vinod Sharma.  He is also asked to call for the entire record of the case.

                             Adjourned to 14.09.2015.”

9.      On September 14^th, 2015 following order was passed by this Commission:

“1.               Shri Mohit Sareen, Advocate assisted by Shri Sachin Patial has urged that official of Magma Leasing Company Limited shall appear before the Registering Authority, Paonta Sahib to get the vehicle No.HP17A-2381 transferred from the name of Sulakhan Singh Pradesi (since deceased) whose legal representatives have given the affidavits in favour of Magma Leasing Company Limited and thereafter it shall get the same transferred in the name of Vinod Sharma-complainant, who had purchased the vehicle from Magma Leasing Company. 

2.                Vinod Sharma, who is present in person has stated that he would accompany the official of the Magma Leasing Company before the Registering Authority, Paonta Sahib as and when called for in writing by Magma Leasing Company alongwith the affidavits of legal representatives of Sulakhan Singh, registration certificate etc.

3.                Adjourned to 20.10.2015.”

10.    Later on efforts being made to sort out the matter, the respondents stopped appearing.

11.    Though earlier execution application may have been dismissed as fully satisfied, however it appears that only part of it was satisfied when the Judgment Debtors only handed over certain documents. The actual satisfaction of the order would only be when the order would be fully complied with in the nature that the car has been transferred in the name of the complainant which as per respondents/opposite parties cannot be done. The compliance has to be in its true perspective and in letter and spirit. The compliance could not be by mere supplying of documents unless the vehicle is actually transferred in the name of the purchaser (complainant), on the basis of documents supplied, it cannot be treated as compliance of the order.

12.    In view of the above, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the respondents/opposite parties shall return the money to the complainant and the complainant shall return the car to the respondents/opposite parties. Documents have already been given to the respondents by the complainant.

 

Announced: 26.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL