DATE OF FILING : 07.11.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 20.01.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 31.12.2015.
Md. Zahid Hussain,
son of late Abdul Mazid,
residing at 17/3/1, Seal Basti Second Bye Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah………………………………………..……………….. COMPLAINANT.
Manager Add Trucks Commercial Pvt. Ltd.,
1, Garstin Place Orbit, 3rd floor, Room no. 3C,
Kolkata 700001. ………………………………………………….…OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, Md. Zahid Hussin, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to issue N.O.C. in respect of car in question immediately without demanding any further amount and to restrain the men and agent of o.p. from taking away or snatch away the car of the petitioner in question along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief facts of the case is that complainant purchased one car on hire purchase system from o.p. for a total consideration amount of Rs. 2,69,960/- vide annexure “Agreement for Hire Purchase” dated 01.12.2011. And for that purpose, he paid Rs. 8,160/- on 06.01.2012 as the first installment out of 34 installments. And it is was also agreed between the parties that complainant shall be paying Rs. 7,700/- as EMI on and from 07.02.2012. And he paid 26 installments @ Rs. 7,700/- as EMI vide Annexure Bank Statements of the complainant. Moreover, he paid Rs. 55,000/- on 12.07.2014 towards the total amount of the said vehicle. And as per the terms of the Agreement of Hire Purchase, complainant has paid entire due amount, but even after making repeated requests, o.p. is not issuing N.O.C. for the said vehicle rather they are asking for more amount from the complainant. So, complainant sent lawyer’s notice dated 28.08.2014 to the o.p. and it is alleged that o.p. sent its men on 27.10.2014 to the complainant’s residence to take away the vehicle forcefully. So, being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notice was served. O.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version filed by o.p. along with the Annexures and noted their contents. Firstly, o.p. took a plea that both the parties executed “An agreement of Arbitration” on the very same day i.e., on 01.12.2011 when “Agreement for Hire Purchase” was also executed. Accordingly it is contended by the o.p. that any dispute between the parties was required to be settled by the arbitrator and arbitrator was engaged who passed his order dated 06.04.2013 vide Annexures A,B, C collectively attached with W/V. So the instant petition of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Here we take a pause. O.p. must know that as per Section 3 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ), complainant is at liberty to file a case before Consumer Forum if a consumer dispute is involved even if there is an agreement for arbitration. Moreover, o.p. has admitted vide Para 5 of their written version, that complainant paid Rs. 8,160/- as 1st installment and rest @ Rs. 7,700/- as per agreement for hire purchase. It is further admitted by them complainant paid 28 installments out of 35 installments. Yes, it is true that as per agreement for hire purchase complainant was required to pay 35 installments. So complainant paid Rs. 8,160 + ( Rs. 7,700 X 27) = Rs. 2,16,060/- vide Annexure Bank Statement of the complainant and complainant also paid Rs. 55,000/- on 12.07.2014 vide money receipt dated 12.7.2014 issued by o.p. So complainant paid Rs. 2,71,060/- in total towards the total value of the car being Rs. 2,69,960/- as per Agreement for Hire Purchase dated 01.12.2011. Accordingly it is proved that complainant paid an excess amount of Rs. 1,100/- to the o.p. Still o.p. failed to issue N.O.C. for the vehicle in favour of the complainant. Moreover, by demanding more amount from the complainant o.p. showed severe negligence coupled with unfair trade practice. O.p. should have remembered that the success of their business entirely depends upon the customers’ satisfaction. Forgetting that very spirit o.p. harassed the complainant without caring for degree and level of deficiency in providing service towards him which should not be allowed to be perpetuated any more. So we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant shall be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 572 of 2014 ( HDF 572 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
That the O.P. is directed to issue N.O.C. with respect to the schedule vehicle no. WB-12B0852 within one month from the date of this order i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be imposed upon them till actual issue of the document.
O.p. is also directed not to demand any further amount from the complainant with respect to the Agreement for Hire Purchase dated 01.12.2011 relating to the vehicle no. WB-12B0852.
The o.p. is further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs within one month from the date of this order i.d., 8% interest shall be charged till actual payment.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
