J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops did not pay him Rs. 8, 00,000=00 as per commitment.
The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he purchased one truck after taking financial assistance from the Ops in the year 2010. He obtained loan from the Ops to the tune of Rs. 11, 50,000=00. The complainant used to pay due EMI regularly
1
but due to sad demise of his mother along with financial stringency the complainant became unable to pay some installments and other charges within due time from the month of June 2012. Thereafter the complainant tried heart and soul to repay the due of the Ops in due time by taking loan from his relatives and friends as well as by mortgaging gold ornaments of his wife. The complainant decided to pay the total dues by selling the aforesaid vehicle to Mr. Rejaul Haque Mondal. The Haque Mondal approached before the Ops for taking financial assistance with a view to purchase the aforesaid vehicle. The Ops agreed to extend financial assistance to Mr. Haque Mondal for the said vehicle. The complainant was also intimated by the Ops to release the payment of Rs. 8, 00,000=00 through a letter dated 26.12.2013. As per Motor Vehicles Act the name was changed in the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle from the complainant to Mr. Rejaul Haque Mondal. But till the date of filing of this complaint the OP did not pay any amount as per the letter dated 26.12.2013 to the complainant. For this reason the complainant is suffering from financial crisis as well as mental agony due to illegal act of the OPs. The OPs was asked by the complainant for time and again for making payment of Rs. 8,00,000=00 as per the letter dated 26.12.2013 but the Ops have intentionally ignored the same with a view to harass the complainant and also misbehaved with him at their office, which was informed as G.D. with the Memari P.S. After lapse of five months finding no other alternative the complainant had send down a legal notice through his ld. Advocate on 02.6.2014 to the Branch Office as well as Head Office of the Ops requesting for making payment of Rs. 8,00,000=00 as per letter dated 26.12.2013. Upon receipt of the said legal notice a reply was made to the ld. Advocate of the complainant on 25.6.2014 staging that the ownership has not yet been changed and as such the Ops are unable to pay the said amount as per promise though it has been clearly shown from the vehicle particulars dated 14.7.2014 that the ownership has already been transferred. It is stated by the complainant that though the Ops are bound to pay Rs. 8, 00,000=00 as per their letter dated 26.12.2013 but till date no such payment was made and such action of the Ops can easily be termed as deficiency in service on their behalf. Finding no other alternative the complainant has approached before this ld. Forum praying for direction upon the Ops for making of Rs. 8,00,000=00 to him as compensation with interest and Rs. 1,00,000=00 for harassment and Rs. 20,000=00 as litigation cost.
The POC has been contested by the Ops by filing conjoint written version contending that the complainant availed of the loan facility of Rs. 11,50,000=00 from Sundaram Finance Ltd. for purchase of a vehicle under a loan agreement dated 28.6.2010. The said loan amount was repayable along with interest by 46 monthly
2
installments. Out of which 44 monthly installments were @Rs. 31,250=00 per month and remaining two monthly installments were @Rs. 25,500=00. It was scheduled that the complainant had to repay the entire loan amount along with interest within the period from 03.8.2010 to 03.5.2014. In consideration of availing loan facility the complainant had created charge over and hypothecated the vehicle in favour of Sundaram Finance Ltd. to secure the amount due and payable under the contract and the fact of the hypothecation was also recorded under the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. Under the terms of the contract the complainant had undertaken to pay monthly installment on due dates without any delay or default. The complainant had also agreed to pay additional interest on the amount in arrears from time to time till payment thereof. However, the levy of the additional interest will not in any way absolved his liability under the agreement to pay the installments on due dates. The complainant was highly irregular in paying the monthly installments and most of the installments were not paid on due dates. Since the complainant could not successfully run the vehicle, he approached before the Ops for seeking permission to sell out the vehicle for repayment of the dues. The complainant also undertook to bring a purchaser for the vehicle who would purchase the vehicle for the best price. Accordingly he introduced one Mr. Rejaul Haque Mondal who agreed to buy the vehicle from the complainant and repay the loan. However, the said purchaser also requested Sundaram Finance Ltd. to extend finance for purchase of vehicle. The said request of the intending purchaser was accepted by the Ops and the Ops agreed to extend a sum of Rs. 8, 00,000=00 towards loan for purchase of the said vehicle to the intending purchaser subject to compliance of the necessary formalities. The complainant also agreed to adjust the amount with the amount due and payable under the contract and after adjustment pay the balance amount to him out of the sell price. However, as a matter of policy the Ops extended the loan only when all the RTO formalities are over and the vehicle is transferred in the name of the purchaser in order to safeguard the interest of the Ops. Since the transfer of the ownership has not taken place at that point of time together with the endorsement of the name of the Ops as hypothecator, the Ops are not able to disburse the loan amount and for this reason the amount due under the contract has not yet been adjusted. It is further mentioned by the Ops that the Ops have agreed to release the payment of Rs. 8, 00,000=00 towards loan amount in favour of Rejaul Haque Mondal only after completion of all the documentation including the transfer of ownership. Infact, the said amount ought to be paid to the purchaser of the vehicle towards the loan amount and according to the provision of law the Ops agreed to adjust the loan amount with the amount due and payable by the complainant and pay the balance amount to the
3
complainant. The representative of the Ops never misbehaved with the complainant and accordingly such allegation as made out by the complainant is baseless and only a concocted story. The Ops have further submitted that apart from the above contract the complainant had also availed of another loan facility for Rs. 16,00,000=00 from the Ops to purchase of a another vehicle under the agreement and contract dated 31.12.2010. The said loan amount was repayable along with interest by 45 monthly installments commencing from 03.02.2011 to 03.10.2014. Under the said contract also the complainant committed default in making payment of regular installments and a huge amount is due and payable. On several occasions the complainant was asked to settle the same immediately, in default, the Ops will take legal action against him. Inspite of this the complainant did not take any step till date. As there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops the complainant is not entitle to get any relief as prayed for and according to the Ops the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant has filed written argument. Both parties have filed several papers and documents in support of their respective contentions. We have carefully perused the record, WNA and documents and it is seen by us that there are some admitted facts in the case in hand i.e. the complainant purchased one truck in 2010 after taking financial assistance from the Ops to the tune of Rs. 11,50,000=00, the entire loan amount was repayable along with due interest by 46 monthly installments, out of 46 installments 44 monthly installments were scheduled @Rs. 31,250=00 per month and remaining two monthly installments were @Rs. 25,500=00, both parties have entered into a loan agreement, the vehicle was hypothecated with the Ops, installments commenced from 03.8.2010 and the complainant was under obligation to pay the entire loan amount along with interest within 03.5.2014. Further admitted fact is that the complainant used to pay due EMI regularly but due to sad demise of his mother and financial stringency the complainant became unable to pay due installments along with other charges within schedule time from the month of June 2012, during agreement the complainant agreed to pay additional interest on the amount in arrears from time to time till payment thereof. As the complainant could not successfully run the vehicle due to some problem he approached before the OP for seeking permission to sell out the vehicle for making repayment of the entire loan amount along with interest and other charges, the allegation of the complainant is that though the Ops committed for making payment of Rs. 8,00,000=00 by issuing a letter dated 26.12.2013 till filing of this complaint the Ops did not bother to make payment of any amount and according to the complainant such inaction on behalf of the Ops;
4
the complainant is suffering from serious financial problem and hence the service of the Ops is suffering from deficiency in servicer and unfair trade practice. On the contrary, the plea of the Ops is that they committed for extension of loan amounting to Rs. 8, 00,000=00 to the new purchaser i.e. Mr. Rejaul Haque Mondal, who intended to purchase the vehicle from the complainant, but of course after completion of all formalities as per the terms and the conditions of the Ops for providing loan amount to him. Further argument of the Ops is that they did not make any commitment for refund of Rs. 8, 00,000=00 to the complainant as the Ops are entitled to get the balance amount towards loan from the complainant as the complainant has failed to make payment of the entire loan amount with interest and other charges within due period as per hypothecation agreement.
It is evident from the record that inspite of his best efforts for making repayment of the loan amount the complainant could not pay the dues within stipulated period and decided for repayment of the entire dues along with interest and other charges by taking loan from his relatives and friends, as well as, mortgaging some gold ornaments of his wife. Subsequently he decided to sale out the said vehicle to Mr. Rejaul Haque Mondal and approached before the Ops praying for providing financial assistance to Mr. Haque Mondal as to he can purchase the said vehicle from the complainant. It is mentioned by the complainant that as per direction of the Ops he released the said vehicle to Mr. Haque Mondal and assurance was given to him that the sell price of the said vehicle was at Rs. 8, 00,000=00. The complainant has claimed that as the Ops have informed him by issuing a letter dated 26.12.2013 to release the said vehicle at Rs. 8,00,000=00 hence, the Ops are under compulsion for making payment of Rs. 8,00,000=00 to the complainant towards the sale price of the vehicle in question. It is also evident from the POC that as per Motor Vehicles Act the name was changed in the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle from the complainant to Mr. Haque Mondal. But the grievance of the complainant is that by filing of this complaint, the Ops have miserably failed to comply with their own commitment as mentioned in the letter dated 26.12.2013. We have noticed that as the Ops have failed to take any action as per their commitment according to the complainant, Advocate’s letter was issued upon the Ops and the Ops have replied the same through their Ld. Advocate also. Upon careful consideration of the complaint, as well as, the entire document we are of the view that we have failed to find out any scrap of document wherein the Ops have committed for making payment of Rs. 8, 00,000=00 to the complainant directly towards the sale price of the vehicle. There is contrary picture i.e. the Ops have committed to extend loan facility to Mr. Rejaul Haque Mondal to the tune of Rs. 8, 00,000=00 for purchasing the said vehicle from the complainant subject to compliance
5
with the formalities as per terms and the conditions of the loan agreement in respect of handing over/transfer of the vehicle from the name of the complainant to Mr. Haque Mondal. Real picture is of course the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 8, 00,000=00 towards the sale price of the said vehicle, but the same is not from the Ops, the said amount will be paid by Mr. Haque Mondal towards the sale price of the said vehicle. Therefore, the complainant cannot claim any amount towards the sale price of the said vehicle from the Ops directly; otherwise, he can claim the same Mr. Haque Mondal, if any. But such dispute by and between the complainant and Mr. Haque Mondal cannot be adjudicated before this ld. Forum and moreover no prayer has yet been made by the complainant in the present complaint. As we have failed to find out any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops and simultaneously as the complainant has failed to prove any inaction of the Ops we are inclined to dismiss the complaint.
Going by the foregoing discussions hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the petition of complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed on contest. However considering the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs. With the above-mentioned observation the complaint is thus disposed of.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Durga Sankar Das) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
