Tripura

West Tripura

CC/62/2017

Sri Sujit Chakraborty. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Pandit, Mr.N.K.Biswas.

12 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  62  of   2017

Sri Sujit Chakraborty,
S/O- Rabindra Chakraborty,
Lankamura,  Agartala, 
West Tripura,            .....….…...Complainant.

        VERSUS       

      1. M/S Mahindra And Mahindra 
Financial Services Ltd.,
          Assam-Agartala Road,
Mathchowmuhani Market,
1st Floor of Bharatya Mahila Bank,
Agartala, West Tripura.        ............Opposite Party.
     

 __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

For the Complainant        : Sri Swarup Pandit,
                      Sri Nabajit Kumar Biswas,           
                       Advocates.

For the O.P.             : Sri Bhaskar Deb,
                      Sri Debjoy Majumdar,
                      Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 12.10.2017.

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by one Sujit Chakraborty U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he purchased one car by taking loan from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services. Loan is to be paid back in 58 installments within 5 years. But due to financial crisis petitioner failed to pay the installment. O.P. Finance company after one year suddenly took away the vehicle from the Office lane without providing seizure list and without giving any notice. Petitioner went to the office of the finance company and asked for statement of loan account. But the company failed to provide it and sold the vehicle to others. The sale price itself is higher than the dues of loan. For the deficiency of service petitioner suffered and claimed Rs.1, 70,000/-.
2.        O.P. Mahindra And Mahindra Finances Services appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that O.P. finance company sent SMS message to the complainant for payment, also sent notice but petitioner failed to pay installment. Out of 58 installment only 19 installments was paid. Petitioner surrendered his own vehicle as he could not pay the installment due to financial crisis. O.P. also did not give reply to the prayer of the petitioner and there is no deficiency of service by the O.P.

3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (I) Whether the O.P. bank illegally seized the vehicle and sold out without giving notice?
         (II) Whether there was deficiency of service by the bank and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?
4.        Petitioner produced letter dt. 23.08.16, postal receipt, letter dt. 27.07.17, reply letter. Petitioner also produced statement on affidavit of 2 witnesses namely Ajit Malakar and Sujit Chakraborty.
5.        O.P. Finance Company on the other hand produced  copy of SMS, notice sent to the petitioner. 
On the basis of all the evidences on record we shall now determine the points.

            Findings and decision:

7.        Loan agreement was not produced either by the petitioner or O.P.  Admittedly petitioner was defaulter. He did not pay the installments in time.
8.        We have gone through the SMS messages sent by the finance company in the telephone number of the petitioner. 63 messages were sent.
9.        We have gone through the letter given by the petitioner to the Branch Manager, Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company. In that letter petitioner clearly stated that he had surrendered all 3 vehicles to the company due to financial reason. He had no knowledge about aforesaid loan agreement. From this letter it is clear that actually he surrendered the vehicles and requested the finance company to provide the statement of loan account. But the statement on loan account was not supplied by the O.P.
10.        From the evidence of Ajit Malakar it is found that Somo Gold Cx (Tata) vehicle was taken away by the company illegally without notice. 
11.        From statement of Sujit Chakraborty it is found that 3 vehicles were taken by him and by mistake he wrote that 3 vehicles were surrendered by him. He only surrendered one vehicle TATA Tata Nano LX. 
12.        From the scrutiny of the evidences on record it is found that company demanded Rs.5,26,710/- under agreement from the petitioner by giving notice on 6th June, 2016. That payment was not given. But the finance company failed to supply the status of the loan and also the statement of loan account. Finance company is under obligation to supply the loan account and status of the loan. Petitioner surrendered the vehicle and wanted to get the information about the status of the loan and statement of account. Company failed to provide it. As the petitioner surrendered the vehicle so it is established that no force was applied and in this regard there is no deficiency of service by the company. Even after filing of the case the company failed to submit the loan account. It is not informed that for how much amount the 3 vehicles was sold out or not sold out. If it is not sold out then chance is to be given to the petitioner to clear the loan and take back the surrendered vehicle. And if it is actually sold then it is to be shown for how much money it was sold out and whether petitioner is entitled to get the excess amount received by selling the vehicle. This information must be given by the finance company. Finance company failed to do so and it this is deficiency of service. Petitioner is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- for this deficiency of service by the Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services. Petitioner is also entitled to get the statement of account and sale price of the surrender vehicle before the company. Company is to provide this information to the petitioner along with the statement of account. Both the points are decided accordingly.

13.        In view of our above findings over the two points we direct the O.P. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services  to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner as compensation for deficiency of service and also Rs.3,000/- for litigation cost. In addition company is to provide information regarding sale price of the surrendered vehicle to the petitioner with supportive documents and also provide the statement of loan account immediately.     
         

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

MT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.