Delhi

New Delhi

CC/360/2009

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Sep 2019

ORDER

 

 

         CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

 VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

              CC. No./360/2009                                                                            Dated:

             In the matter of:-                                                                                                               

               Sh. Raj Kumar

               S/o Sh. Nathu Singh

                R/o House No. 601,

                 Rajokri Villa, Near Air Force Camp,

                  New Delhi                                                                                           …..Complainant

Versus

              M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd.

          4^th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,

          18- Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001                                                                                                                                                                                    .…… Opposite Party

                                                        ORDER

            PRESIDENT- ARUN KUMAR ARYA

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a registered owner of vehicle bearing no. DL 4C AF 1654, Ford Fiesta 2006, a mid size premium segment car and the complainant had made an outright purchase of the aforesaid vehicle without availing any finance from any bank or financial institution. In the last week of April 2008 the complainant was contacted by the phone banking executive of the OP company namely Sh. Rajesh and the complainant asked the executive of the OP company to arrange a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/-to be repaid in 36 equated installment. Against the loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- a monthly installment of Rs. 14,625/-was calculated. The executive of the OP company got some blank papers signed from the complainant and collected all the original documents of the vehicle. It was assured by the executive of the OP Co. that within a week the complainant would receive the demand draft of Rs. 4,00,000/- alongwith a new Registration Certificate of the Vehicle. Later on, the complainant received a letter dated 29/04/2008 from the OP bank alongwith contract number between the complainant and the OP bank is 5000277636 and the complainant is liable to make payment of 35 monthly equated installments aggregating to Rs. 5,11,875/-.

 

Further, the executive of the OP visited the residence of the complainant on 11/05/2008 and handed over a cheque of Rs. 3,84,060/-, however, the said cheque could not honoured when it was presented to the bank. Then the complainant met the executive of the OP bank and the said executive told to complainant that the complainant would receive a demand draft in place of the cheque as the cheque was wrongly handed over to the complainant. Theexecutive of the OP bank collected the aforesaid cheque back from the complainant on the pretext that the OP Company would issue a demand draft in place of the dishonoured cheque.

 

Later, on 24/10/2008 the complainant received a legal notice dated 14/10/2008 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act for dishonoured of the cheque no. 534735 dated 26/09/2008 amounting Rs. 14,625/- through which the complainant came to know that OP Co. is initiating criminal proceedings against the complainant and misutilizing the cheques lying in the custody of the OP Co.

The matter could not resolve between the parties despite several efforts of the complainant, hence, this complainant filed this complainant against OP for the redressal of his grievance.

 

OP was noticed and OP was filed its written statement. It is stated on behalf of OP that the complainant had executed a loan agreement with OP and both the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement as per the agreement. The complainant had to pay the loan installments in time. It is further alleged that the complainant had not come with clean hands before this Forum. The complainant after executing the loan agreement on 24/04/2008 and agreeing to pay the installment every month defaulted in payment of loan installments and despite various notices he never updated the account and continued to use and enjoy the profits of the vehicle without paying the installments. At the time of executing the agreement, the complainant had intimated that he has enough means to repay the loan every month on or before the due date and will not commit any default but the complainant was continuing with the default and has not paid even a single installment. Since, the complainant is not paying the installments and has been in default of several installments, he is not entitled to approach a judicial Forum with concocted and concealed facts and misleading averments. The complainant has concealed the fact regarding the cheques alleged presented to his bankers twice and also dishonoured twice. The complainant has not filed the copy of the cheque before thisForum and has not impleaded M/s P.R. Motors who had issued the cheque to the complainant.

 

It is alleged that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. M/s P.R. Motors, who was to disburse the loan to the complainant. Complainant has raised various complex issues both on law and facts and the claim of the complainant requires careful scrutiny and recording of evidence and there are numerous documents to be proved to sustain the claim made in the complaint. Such type of complaints requires tremendous amount of time for recording evidence and hearing arguments and the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act which exercises summary jurisdiction and cannot entertain complicated questions of law and facts.

Both the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit, we have heard arguments advanced at the bar and perused the records.

We have considered the material placed before us and the submissions of the parties with relevant provisions of law.

 

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, an elaborate evidence and cross-examination of the witness is required to elucidate the truth which cannot be done in the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act.

In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint involves complicated issues such as fraud, threatening and coercion. This issues required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.  We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the present complainant cannot be adjudicated by way of Summary Proceeding; hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law.

Copy   of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  parties  to   the    case    free  of     cost      as   statutorily    required. 

Announced in open Forum on 20/09/2019

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

 

 

                                   (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                       PRESIDENT

                 (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                          (H M VYAS)

           MEMBER                                                                                    MEMBER