Orissa

Jajapur

CC/11/2016

Sanjay Kumar Mallik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shreeram Equipment Finance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Badri Narayan Panda,D.K.Nath

30 Apr 2018

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                            

                                             Dated the 30th day of April,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.11 of 2016

Sanjay kumar Mallik    , S/O Makar Mallik   

Vill. Prahalladpur  ,P.O. Sayedpur

 P.S. Binjharpur  

Dist.- Jajpur .                                                                            …… ……....Complainant . 

                                                                                                      

                                                  (Versus)

1. Shreeram Equipment Finance Co.Ltd, Sabari Samriddhi Building ,V.N.Purav Marg

Chambar ST Stand,Chember,Mumbai .

   

2. Shreeram Equipment Finance Co.Ltd,  3^rd floor,Mookambika Complex No.4.Lady Desika

       Road ,Mylopore,Chennai.

3.   Shreeram Equipment Finance Co.Ltd, Chandikhole Branch, At/P.O.Chandikhole ,

Dt. Jajpur .                                                                                                                          

For the Complainant:                       Sri B.N.Panda, Sri D.K.Nath,  Advocates .

For the Opp.Parties :                        Sri  S.K. Dash,  Advocate.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   30.04.2018.

MISS  SMITA  RAY , LADY  MEMBER .

Deficiency in financial service is the grievance of the petitioner .

            The facts relevant as per complaint  petition are that the petitioner  is an unemployed youth and for maintaining his lively hood    purchased   a  2^ND hand 3D.K Backar  Loader which was seized by O.P.no.3  and  kept  in his custody of Santilata stock yard   since the loader was purchased with the financial help of O.Ps . Thereafter the O.P.no. 3 demanded Rs 2 lakh  as down payment with the condition that if the petitioner paid down payment then the O.Ps will refinance the rest amount of the vehicle. As motivated by the o.ps the petitioner paid the down payment of Rs. 2 lakh  without obtaining any money receipt  as the O.Ps assured the petitioner to hand over the said vehicle along with all the documents  within  a period of one month .  But after lapse of one  month the O.P.no. 3 stated that  that the original owner has released  the vehicle through court order and again assured to provide another vehicle within a period of two months . After expiry of  3 moths the o.p.no.3 provided   a J.C.B  machine for which an  agreement has been made in  between  the petitioner and O.Ps for  a sum of Rs 10,50,000/-  financed charges Rs. 3,20,000/-  total finance value of  Rs.13,70,200/-  to be paid by the petitioner in 34 equal  EMI  .Apart from that there is an oral agreement in between  the parties             advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-  will be adjusted in the loan amount.   It is pertinent  to mention  here that  after receiving  the  vehicle the petitioner  on 31.03.15   paid Rs.6,89,900/- . But it is submitted that the O.P.no. 3 knowingly has provided a defective vehicle  and most of  the time the said vehicle was detained and  for that the petitioner has spent   Rs. 2 lakhs for repairing  of the vehicle .

            The petitioner though  intimated all these facts  to the O.Ps ,  the O.Ps  assured to the petitioner to adjust the   amount as well as the down payment by way of OTS scheme,  but in spite of regular intimation,   neither the O.Ps adjusted  the said amount nor in the OTS scheme.  .Accordingly  finding no other alternative  the petitioner filed the present dispute with the prayer to pass necessary order to direct the O.Ps to adjust the down payment amount of Rs.2 lakhs   along with expenditure accrued   due to defect of  machine or settled  the loan amount by OTS scheme.

            The O.Ps after appearance  through their learned advocate   subsequently  filed the written version  taking the following stands :-

That the petitioner is not  a consumer under C.P. Act and nothing may be heard in this case for the complainant .That the present petitioner is  doing the business having more vehicles i.e   Loader, Bollero  and other heavy vehicle to  which a simple person having no source of income can never manage the above vehicles .it is also to mention  here that the complainant had  obtained heavy vehicles under the Finance  of the present O.P.no. 3 and after that the complainant was / is  always in a mood to cheat  the op.3 for which another case was filed in the present forum by the petitioner. And the same was disposed of with compromise and OTS was made therein .That taking into the facts  and admissions  of the complaint the vehicle were financed by the petitioner    for his business purpose . Hence  a person doing business by taking vehicle in fiancé he can not treated as a consumer U/ S 2(d) of C.P. Act  and treated as commercial purpose .

That in giving of an amount of Rs 2 lakh  being motivated by o.p.no. 3 is totally false and concocted  stories by the petitioner only to cheat the op.3 by putting them in this forum .That such type of transaction of Rs 2 lakh of down payment never done by both the parties. Other wise he would have received the money receipt  if the petitioner to pay Rs 2 lakhs why he should not received the money receipt against the such payment  .There is  no chance for a body  corporate to make any  oral agreement or receiving any amount even  a single  paisa and they are is also no chance of  assurance to provide another vehicle .Hence in the above circumstances  the  case may kindly be dismissed with cost  against the O.Ps.

On the date of hearing we heard the argument  of the learned advocate  from  both  the sides. After perusal of the record along with documents in details we are inclined to hold that the onus lies with the petitioner to prove his case but we do not come across with a single scrap of paper which will establish  that such type of transaction  regarding payment of Rs 2 lakh has been paid   by the petitioner to the O.Ps   as down payment  to obtain a 2nd  hand vehicle .Hence it is our considered  view  that the petitioner fails to establish his case in providing sufficient evidence which would prove that he has paid 2 lakh to O.P. no.3 for the above purpose .

Hence this order

 The C.C case is dismissed U/S 26 of C.P. Act  as  it is a vexatious proceeding.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th  day of  April,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.