IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/128/2022.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

19.12.22                                     03.01.23                                  01.04.24

Complainant:Asadul Sekh, S/o Abdul Karim Sekh,

                        Vill-Natunpara, Naopukura, PS-Beldanga, Pin-742133

                        Dist-Beldanga

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.Manager,

 Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.

55/55/1, Chowrangee Road, 5^th Floor, PS-Hare Street, Kol-71

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        :M.A. Samim

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party                     : Indronil Banerjee.

Present:    Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

         Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Asadul Sekh (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.(here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

                 The Complainant entered into 2 loan agreements with the OP dt. 28.02.19 vide 1^st loan agreement being No. XVFPPAS00002835628 in respect of vehicle No. WB57D7145 for 1^st loan sum of Rs. 27,07,000/- along with interest and 2^nd vide loan agreement being No. XVFPPAS00003824161 in respect of vehicle No. WB57D7145 for 2^nd loan sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest.

                 The Complainant have paid of 1^st loan of Rs. 20,30,200/- out of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 27,07,000/- and 2^nd loan of Rs. 1,41,559/- and eager to pay the rest of the amount in EMI .

                 The OP in spite of the aforesaid facts and circumstances have forcefully and illegally taken the possession of the vehicle being No. WB57D7145 from near Krihnanagar, nadia on 21.10.22.

                 The Complainant being the bonafide owner of the vehicle in question being No.WB57D7145 is not in a possession of the same.

                 The Complainant in eager pay the rest of the loan amount in EMI.

            The act of the OP for illegal possession of the vehicle being No. WB57D7145 after receiving Rs. 21,00,000/- out of the total sum of the loan amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- is illegal, detrimental to law and deficiency in providing service on the part of the OP towards the Complainant who is a consumer to the financial services provided by the OP.

            The Complainant will suffer irreparable loss and injury unless the vehicle being No. WB57D7145 is returned to the Complainant.

            The cause of action for the instant complaint arose on 20^th November,2022 when the OP failed to deliver the possession of the vehicle being No. WB57D7145 without considering the letter dated 19^th November, 2022 and arose at Natunpara, Naopukuria Beldanga, Murshidabad within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commission.

                 Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed this instant case praying for directing the OP to give possession of the vehicle being No. WB57D7145 to the Complainant and allow the Complainant to pay the rest of the loan amount in EMI and to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- for harassment, physical injury and mental agony.         OP is contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The specific case is that in terms of the said Agreement at clause No. 29 thereon, it is provided that all disputes arising under the Agreement are to be referred to the sole arbitrator to be nominated by Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. and the venue of the Arbitration is to be at any place which decided by the company. The agreement also provides that the Courts at Chennai alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter arising out of the Agreement.

     On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1

Ld. Adv. for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer to the OP. On this point Ld. Adv. for the OP stated nothing. Moreover, we peruse the materials on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions advanced by the parties we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the OP. The Point No. 1 is thus decided in favour of the Complainant.

Point No.2&3

                 Ld. Adv. for the Complainant submits that in terms of the Loan Agreement at clause No. 29 thereon, it is provided that all disputes arising under the Agreement are to be referred to the sole arbitrator to be nominated by Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. and the venue of the Arbitration is to be at any place which will be decided by the company. The agreement also provides that the Courts at Chennai alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter arising out of the Agreement.

            He further submits that the dispute in between the Complainant and the OP,Cholamandalam investment and Finance Co. Ltd. has already been settled by the sole arbitrator Shivaji Mitra. He has filed the copy of award passed by the sole arbitrator.

            The point to be noted is that Ld. Advocate for the Complainant was found absent on repeated call. However keeping in mind the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the OP and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed.  

Reasons for delay:

             The Case was filed on 19.12.22 and admitted on 03.01.23. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

     Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is          

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/128/2022 be and the same is dismissed on merit against the OP but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

        Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

Member                                                  President.