This is a complaint made by one Sri Lal Das, son of Late Madhu Das, 271/1, Satin Sen Nagr, P.S.-Baranagar, Kolkata-700 108 against (1) Mr. Anil Agarwal, residing at 10,S.N.Roy Road, Sahapur, P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 038, OP No.1, (2) Debesh Finance Company, 87, D.H. Road, P.O. & P.S.-Behala (Opposite Ajanta Cinema), Kolkata-700 038, OP No.2 and (3) Dewesh Enterprise, 87, D.H.Road, P.O. & P.S.-Behala, Kolkata-700 038, OP No.3, praying for a (i) direction upon the OP to pay compensation to the tune of Rs7,62,500/-, (ii)  another Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and (iii) Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant purchased a taxi bearing No.WB 04D 0830 from OP No.1, Anil Agarwal by paying Rs.1,30,000/- as down payment and  OP suggested to the Complainant to pay Rs.3,00,000/-, because the value of the car is Rs.4,30,000/-. Complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. OPs are financiers of car and OP No.1 is the proprietor of the firm under the name and style of Debesh Finance Company and Dewesh Enterprise the OP No.2 & 3 respectively. Thereafter the Finance Company sanctioned an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Complainant. At the time of handing over the car OP No.1 compelled the Complainant to sign a bunch of blank papers having address of the  OP No.2 & 3.

            Apart from that vehicle loan, Complainant also took Rs.25,000/- by cheque which includes verification charges and other miscellaneous charges and instalment was fixed on Rs.3,200/- p.m. for twenty three months. Complainant already paid seventeen monthly instalments. OP No.1 assured Complainant to transfer the ownership of taxi being registration No.WB 04D 0830 to his name after payment of the full consideration money. It was mutually settled between OP No.1 and the Complainant that the valuation of the taxi is Rs.4,30,000/- out of which Complainant will pay Rs.1,30,000/- in cash and the rest amount in monthly instalment of Rs.10,000/-. Complainant had already paid Rs.5,64,500/- including  the monthly instalment of Rs.10,000/-, after his payment of thirty nine instalment Complainant became seriously ill and could not run the vehicle. Complainant failed to pay nine instalments. Thereafter, O.P. snatched the car from the driver of the Complainant. After repossession of the car OP send an inland telegram informing the Complainant regarding the repossession. As per record, it is clear that Complainant paid Rs.6,18,500/-. But, OP repossessed the car. So, Complainant filed this case.

            On the basis of the above facts, the complaint was admitted and notices were issued upon the OPs. OPs appeared and OP No.1 & 3 filed written version. Thereafter, date was fixed for filing affidavit-in-chief. But, Complainant did not file affidavit-in-chief and left taking step. OP No.1 & 3 filed written argument.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant did not file affidavit-in-chief. So, the case has to be decided on the basis of complaint and written version.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed form.

            On perusal of the written version, it appears that OPs have denied the allegations of the complaint. They have stated that  on 5.10.2010 one hire purchase agreement was executed between the Complainant and the OP No.3 represented by OP No.1. In that agreement, it was mentioned that total consideration amount of Rs.4,80,000/- has to be paid for hiring taxi. OP No.1 & 3 granted loan to the Complainant. But, Complainant did not comply the terms nd conditions of the hire purchase agreement. Complainant made payment of instalment not within the time  of the agreement.

            Further, OP No.1 & 3 informed Complainant about the due amount. But, Complainant did not make any payment. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement which lay down that in case of any dispute the matter has to be referred to arbitrator. Complainant is liable to pay the loss suffered by OP No.1. The claim by Complainant to the tune of Rs.10,62,500/- is baseless and groundless. So, OP No.1 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of this case.

            OP No.1 & 3 have filed written note on argument where they have reiterated the facts mentioned in the written version.

            Considering the contents of the complaint and written version, it is clear that both the sides have committed latches.

            Further, Complainant who filed this case did not remain vigilant because from the very beginning Complainant conducted this case in a lethargic manner. On 5.9.2016 the case was adjourned to 8.9.2016 for admission hearing. Thereafter, on 8.9.2016 nobody was present on behalf of the complainant to move the complaint application for admission. On 9.9.2016, Ld. Advocate for Complainant appeared and moved the application, after which it was admitted. On 23.9.2016 OP No.1 & 3 made appearance and filed vakalatnama and on 5.10.2016 they took time for filing written version. On 27.10.2016, OP No.1 & 3 filed written version and date was fixed for filing affidavit-in-chief by the Complainant. But, Complainant did not file affidavit-in-chief. Complainant was directed to show cause. But, Complainant did not file affidavit-in-chief, even after acceptance of his show cause and thereafter the case was fixed for final hearing.

            It means that the contents which are in the complaint petition did not get proved by the conduct of the Complainant and hence no relief can be granted to the Complainant.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/389/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed.