BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.427 of 2015
Date of Instt. 01.10.2015
Date of Decision: 16.01.2019
Gurdev Lal S/o Kartara Ram, Age 55 years R/o Village Adaraman Tehsil Nakodar Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Manager/Office In Charge Indusind Bank SCF No.23-24 Phase 3-B-2 Mohali Punjab through its office at Indusind Bank Ltd. (Vehicle Finance Division) SCF 23-24 Phase 3-B-2 Mohali Punjab.
2. Indusind Bank Reliance Tower, 2nd Floor, Opp. Shangrila Hotel Near Guru Nanak Mission Hospital, Jalandhar Through its Manager/Office In Charge.
3. Sh. Jeevan Singh Marketing Officer (collection) C/o Indusind Bank marketing and finance service Ltd. C/o Reliance Tower 2nd Floor Shangrila Hotel Near Guru Nanak Mission Hospital, Jalandhar.
4. Ms. Cargo Motor Private Ltd. (sales) 16/17 Patel Chowk Jalandhar City through its Manager/In charge of the office.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Present: Sh. Ashok Bammi, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. K. A. S. Rana, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 to 3.
Sh. Suteekshan Samrol, Adv Counsel for the OP No.4.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant approached to OP No.4 to purchase a TATA ACE (Vehicle) and they are sole authorized dealers of TATA Motors at Jalandhar. Mostly vehicles are financed by the banks and financial institutions as per guideline of the Reserve Bank of India. At the time of purchase when complainant visited to the office of OP No.4, they assured to the complainant that OPs No.1 and 2 represent to OP No.4 regarding to finance of the vehicle to the purchaser and they all have good influence in the market as well as with us. Further, OP No.4 assured him that they receive very low interest from the other Financial Institutions. He trusted upon them and at that time one representative of the OPs No.1 and 2 was sitting in the office of the OP No.4. Thereafter, OP No.4 prepared an invoice in which he calculated the amount total price of vehicle, including Tax, Temporary No., Permanent Registration No. of the Vehicle, R. C. Road Tax, Insurance, Firle Charges, Body Charges of the vehicle and Margin Money of Rs.70,000/-. The Invoice was kept by the OP No.4 in his office. The complainant was directed to deposit the total amount of Rs.95,000/-.
2. After two three days, the complainant deposited Rs.95,000/- to the OP No.4 and to the representative of OP No.1 and 2. After depositing the amount of Rs.95,000/-, the OP asked to the complainant that it will take about two weeks to complete the body of the vehicle, when body will fitted on the vehicle, they will inform to the complainant. At that time, OP No.1, 2 and 4 got the signatures of the complainant on so many documents and also obtained resident proof from the complainant and asked him to deposit Rs.7100/- every month as installments of the loan amount, which was granted by the OP No.1 and 2. The complainant has paid all the loan amount to the OP No.1 to 3, but they have not issued all receipts to the complainant. That all the OPs were fully bound to handover the new vehicle with the all completed documents. That they have nothing done regarding the vehicle, rather they have graved amount received from him. OP No.3, who is marketing officer/collection officer of the OPs No.1 and 2. However, the complainant deposited all installments regularly with the OP No.1 to 3 on behalf of the OP No.4 whenever the installment was late, the OPs have received that installment with fine. Till today, neither OP No.1 to 4 have issued any original documents to the complainant nor they have handed over the vehicle. The complainant requested so many times to all the OPs that kindly issue him documents and also handover the vehicle, but they always refused to do so. The complainant inquired about this forgery from OPs No.1 to 4, but they has not given proper reply and OP No.1 to 3 have parked previously seized vehicle from him in front of his house without any documents. The said vehicle is not in working condition too much damaged and broken thus, it has been done totally fraud with the complainant by the OPs No.1 to 4 jointly. The vehicle parked in front of the house of the complainant neither is in working condition nor OPs No.1 to 4 as informed him that why they have parked the vehicle in front of his house and as such, the OPs committed an offence of Consumer Act and they are liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @18% and Rs.6,00,000/- as damages and compensation and Rs.80,000/- traveling expenses and Rs.50,000/- cost of petition.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 to 3 appeared through its counsel and filed joint reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is not maintainable because the complainant has purchased the said vehicle for commercial purpose and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground and further alleged that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as there is an arbitration clause in the loan agreement executed between the parties and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score and further alleged that the matter involved in this complaint is a complicated and the same cannot be adjudicated before this Forum by way of summary procedure and further submitted that the complainant has concealed the real facts from the Forum. The true facts are that the complainant had entered into loan agreement, vide contract No.PJJ00077G with the OPs No.1 and 2 regarding the purchase of TATA ACE and as per loan agreement executed between the parties, the finance amount is Rs.2,50,000/-, interest charges of Rs.90,000/-, total amounting Rs.3,40,000/-, which the complainant agreed to pay to the OPs in 48 monthly installments with effect from 14.02.2011 to 07.01.2015. However, the complainant made a default in making monthly installments to the OPs No.1 and 2 and as per statement of account of the complainant duly maintained by the OPs No.1 and 2, a sum of Rs.93,957.46 as settlement amount is still due to be paid by the complainant to the answering OPs No.1 and 2. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and further submitted that the instant complaint is time barred, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the allegations as made by the complainant are totally denied by the answering OPs and further submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. OP No.4 filed its separate reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is not maintainable, hence, is liable to be dismissed and even the complaint is not being covered under the definition of a 'Consumer' as defined under the provisions of 'Consumer Protection Act' and further alleged that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and further submitted that the answering OP is neither deficient in service nor is guilty of any unfair trade practice and therefore, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the complaint is time barred, therefore, the same is not maintainable. On merits, the allegations as made by the complainant are categorically denied except the factum that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the answering OP, the said fact explained in Para No.6 of the Written Reply and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-28 and closed the evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1 to 3/A along with some documents Ex.OP-1 to 3/1 to Ex.OP-1 to 3/3 and closed the evidence.
7. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. I. D. Sharma, Sr. Manager as Ex.OP4/A along with some documents Ex.OP4/1 to Ex.OP4/5 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. If we go through the allegations as made by the complainant in the complaint, then we can say without any hesitation that the complainant has not intentionally mentioned the date on which he purchased the vehicle in question, but the said fact is got clarified from the Sales Invoice Ex.C-1, wherein the date of purchase is mentioned 31.12.2010 and its insurance was also obtained on the same day and copy of the Insurance is Ex.C-2 and in the Sales Invoice, it is categorically mentioned that the vehicle is hypothecated with Indusind Bank Ltd. i.e. Ex.OP-4, but the complainant has concealed all these facts from the Forum rather we think that the complainant is required to mention the date of purchase, which is 31.12.2010 and if the invoice of the said vehicle was issued on 31.12.2010, then why the complainant remained silent for about five years i.e. upto the date of filing the instant complaint, why he did not approach to any authority for non-delivery of the vehicle to the complainant. So, if the case of the complainant is to be taken from this angle, then it is clear that the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 31.12.2010 when after issuing the Sales Invoice the vehicle in question was not delivered to the complainant, but the complainant remained silent for five years, therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred and the same is liable to be dismissed on this score alone and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being time barred with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Thatai Karnail Singh
16.01.2019 Member President
