West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/6/2015

Hafijul Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. G. Dey.

08 Feb 2016

ORDER

                                                           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and

Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.06/2015

                                                        

                                       Hafijul Khan……………………………..….……Complainant.

Versus

 

1)The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Inda, College Road, P.O. Inda, P.S. Kharagpur (T), Dist. Paschim Medinipur;

2)The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., 11,     

Dakshichara Shankarala, P.O. & P.S. Tamluk, Dist Purba Medinipur;

3)  The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Serampur            

      P.O. & P.S. Tamluk, Dist Purba Medinipur..…….......…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Gautam Dey, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Subrata Bikas Das, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 08/02/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased one Tata ACE 2009 vehicle  after taking financial assistance by virtue of a loan agreement from the opposite party no.1.  Registration number of the said vehicle is WB-29A/0875.  Said vehicle was also insured with the Bajaj Allianz Insurance

Contd……………..P/2

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

Company Ltd. for the period from 24 August, 2012 to 23 August, 2013.  The complainant paid the loan amount properly and received “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” from the opposite party no.1.  On 19/09/2014, the opposite party no.2 without any reasonable cause  illegally repossessed the vehicle while the said vehicle was plying on Delhi Road and now the vehicle has been kept  in the office of the opposite party no.3 in spite of payment of all loan amount.  The complainant went to the office of the opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 on several times but they refused to return the vehicle to the complainant.  Lastly, on 24/12/2014, the complainant went to the office of opposite party nos. 1 & 2 and requested to return the vehicle which is the only source of income of the complainant but the opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 totally refused to return the same.  For such act of the opposite parties nos.1 and 2, the complainant is suffering monitory loss from 19/04/2014 till date.  Hence, the complaint praying for directing the opposite parties to return the vehicle and to pay compensation towards monitory loss of the complainant amounting to Rs.50,000/- and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and for litigation cost.

                  The opposite party-Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. has contested this case by filling a written objection. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the opposite party  gave financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/-  to the complainant for purchasing a Tata  vehicle of model no. Tata ACE  2009  under a loan agreement dated 26/08/2009.  At the time of execution of the said agreement, it was decided that the complainant would pay a sum of Rs.3,46,950/- by 46 installments including financial charges.  After purchasing the vehicle being registration no.WB-29A/0875, the complainant started transport business and in course of such transport business, the complainant willfully and negligently did not make payment of the loan amount to the opposite party for which a huge amount of loan has become due.  In such circumstances, the complainant sold the vehicle to one Subrata Bera without prior permission from the opposite party.  Showing his loss in such transport business and financial crisis, complainant applied before the opposite party for transferring the loan account in the name of one Subrata Bera in respect of the hypothecated vehicle.  Sri Subrata Bera also applied before the opposite party for transferring the loan account in respect of the hypothecated vehicle in his favour since he purchased the same from Hafijul Khan, the complainant.  In his application Sri Subrata Bera requested the opposite party to make arrangement for registering the vehicle in his name. In such circumstances, the opposite party processed the file in the name of Subrata Bera and on request of the complainant, opposite party issued “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” in favour of the

Contd……………..P/3

 

 

 

( 3 )

complainant and handed over the same to the complainant so that Subrata Bera, the purchaser, get registration in respect of the vehicle from the concerned Regional Transport Authority, Purba Medinipur. After obtaining the   “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE”, the complainant did not submit the same before the Regional Transport Authority, rather  he started twisting the purchaser Subrata Bera and demanded more money for getting registration certificate.  In spite of several request, the complainant did not submit the “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” before the Regional Transport Authority, Tamluk and created difficulties in many ways.  Lastly, on 19/09/2014, the opposite party, finding no other way to protect the interest of the financial company, took possession of the vehicle and kept the same in safe custody.  It is stated that “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” was issued to the complainant in order to change the name of  ownership in the name of Subrata Bera.  In fact, the complainant obtained “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” by practicing fraud with the opposite party as well as the purchaser Subrata Bera and projected the same otherwise.  The allegation of deficiency in service as alleged is baseless.  Opposite party, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and the documents, relied upon by the complainant, have been marked as exhibit 1 to 5.  On the other hand, the opposite party has examined it’s Branch Manager Parimal Doloi as OPW-1 and one Binoy Mridhya as OPW-2.  Documents, relied upon by the opposite party, have been marked as exhibit A to G respectively.

Admittedly, the complainant took financial loan from the opposite party no.1 by a loan agreement vide no.Kharag 09082600 for purchasing a Tata ACE 2009 vehicle being registration no.WB-29A/0875.  According to the complainant, he paid the loan amount properly and received “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” from the opposite party no.1.  Further according to the complainant, in spite of such payment the opposite party no.2 without reasonable cause illegally repossessed the vehicle on 19/09/2014 while the said vehicle was plying on Delhi road and after such repossession, the vehicle has been kept in the office of opposite party no.3.  In spite of request by the complainant, the opposite party nos.1&2 did not return the vehicle to him.  As against this, the case of the opposite party is that they gave financial loan of Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant for purchasing a Tata motor

Contd……………..P/4

 

 

 

( 4 )

vehicle which was subsequently registered being no.WB-29A/0875 and by the said loan agreement dated 26/08/2009, it was decided that the complainant would pay a sum of Rs.3,46,950/- by 46 installments including financial charges.  After purchase of the said vehicle, the complainant started his business of transport but he neglected to pay the loan amount and a huge amount has become due.  In such circumstances, the complainant sold the vehicle to one Subrata Bera without prior permission from the opposite party. Showing his loss in transport business, the complainant thereafter applied before the opposite party for transferring the loan account in the name of Sri Subrata Bera and said Subrata Bera also applied for transferring the loan account in respect of the hypothecated vehicle in his favour since he purchased the same from the complainant.  In such circumstances, the opposite party processed the file in the name of Subrata Bera and on request of the complainant, issued the “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” in favour of Hafijul Khan, the complainant, for the purpose of registration of the vehicle in the name of Subrata Bera.  Further according to the opposite party after obtaining “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE”, the complainant did not submit the same before the Regional Transport Authority rather he started twisting the purchaser Subrata Bera and demanded more money for preparation of registration certificate and for such non production of “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” difficulties arose in many ways for which the opposite party took possession of the vehicle on 19/09/2014 and kept the same in safe custody.  Now the question arises as to whether the opposite party was  justified in taking repossession of the vehicle in question or not.  We find that although the complainant has alleged that he paid the entire loan amount to the opposite parties, but no document of payment of such loan has been filed by the complainant.  The complainant has relied much on the said “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE”  (exhibit-3)  and submitted that since he paid the entire loan amount in full, so this “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” (Exhibit-3) was  issued in his favour.  From the said document, we find that the said “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” was stated to be valid for only 30 days from the date of issue.  Had it been a document of payment of entire loan amount,   no such endorsement regarding validity of 30 days would have been mentioned in that document.  This document itself supports the case of the opposite party that this document was issued only for the purpose of transfer or of registration of the vehicle in the name of one Subrata Bera.  In his cross-examination, the complainant himself has admitted with then he used to pay the loan amount to the opposite party then he was issued receipts thereof and he shall produce all those receipts on the next day.  But no such receipts of payments of loan amount have been filed by the complainant.  Therefore, it cannot be held that the complainant has made full payment of the loan amount in question.

Contd……………..P/5

 

 

 

( 5 )

Be that as it may, we find that it is the case of the opposite party that Subrata Bera and the complainant prayed before them for transferring the loan account in the name of Subrata Bera, the proposed transferee of the vehicle and under such circumstances they issued the “NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE” to the complainant for getting registration of the vehicle in the name of one Subrata Bera.  Further according to the opposite party, thereafter the complainant created troubles and demanded more money from Subrata Bera for which the vehicle was not transferred in the name of Subrata Bera.  It is also the case of the opposite party that the complainant did not repay the loan amount and under such circumstances, they were compelled to repossess the vehicle in question.   We have already found that the complainant has failed to repay the loan amount.  We further find from the cross-examination of OPW-1 that Sri Parimal Doloi, the Branch Manager of the opposite party-Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. that although process of transfer was started in favour of Subrata Bera  but the same was not completed.  Now the question arises as to whether the opposite party in such circumstances was justified in repossessing the vehicle in question.  It is well settled principal of law that forcible repossession of the vehicle is against the settled principal of law.  It is also well settled that method of recovery of vehicle in case of higher purchase agreement should be in pursuance of the process of law and use of muscle power is not permissible.  Here in the present case, we find that without due process of law, the opposite party admittedly took forcible repossession of the vehicle in question which is not permissible in law.  We, therefore, of the view that the complainant is entitled to the relief for return of vehicle in question but he is not entitled to the other reliefs as regard compensation, cost etc, as he has not come with clean hands.  However, the opposite party would be liberty to recover the unpaid amount of loan, if any,  with interest through  due process of law.  The petition of complaint should be therefore allowed in part with the above findings.

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                        that the complaint case no.06/2015  is allowed in part of the contest.  Opposite party nos.1&2 are directed to return the disputed vehicle bearing no. WB-29A/0875 to the complainant within a month from this date of order.

Let copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                 Dictated & Corrected by me             

                         

 

                           President                        Member                      Member                     President

                                                                                                                                   District Forum

                                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur