West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/105/2011

Sri Barun Kumar Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram Transport Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                                       

 Complaint case No.105/2011                                                         Date of disposal: 17/08/2012                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. A. K. Dutta.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. S. B.Das.

                    Sri Barun Kumar Dutta S/o-late Santosh Dutta, Vill-Gangadarpur of P.O.-Khirpai,

                    P.S.-Chandrakona, Dist-Paschim  Medinipur………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. Shriram Transport Finance Ltd., Kharagpur Branch at Inda, P.O.& P.S.-Kharagpur, Dist Paschim Medinipur
2. Shriram Transport Finance  Ltd., Turner Morrison Building, 1^st  floor , 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata-700071…………Ops.

        The brief fact of the case, is as follows

        The complainant on the insistence of the Ops., purchased a truck bearing No.WB/41B-5990 from one Debasih Samanta on payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to him and taking financial assistance of Rs.3,30,000/- from the Ops. It was agreed by the parties that the complainant would repay the said loan amount together with interest, the total amounting  Rs.4,75,958/- by 40 (forty) installments and payment of such installment shall commence from 05/05/10 and the last installment shall be paid by 05/05/2013. Thereafter the complainant started transport business by the said truck for the purpose of self employment. Soon after starting the business the engine of the truck started creating problem. The complainant informed it to the Op. no.1 and asked him to change the engine but to no effect. Ultimately the engine became nonfunctioning which was duly informed to the Op. By the notice dated 06/09/2011 issued by the Op. no.1 the complainant was asked to make payment of the dues. On 20/09/2011 the complainant again asked the Op. no.1 to change the engine of the truck but to no effect. So according to the complainant the Op. no.1 has adopted unfair trade practice by delivering a vehicle with defective engine and such act of the Op. no.1 amounts to deficiency of service also.

Hence this case,

Ops. contested the case by filing a written objection in which they denied the allegations

Contd…………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

as leveled against them in the complaint. The main contentions of the Ops. were that they gave the complainant loan of Rs.3,30,000/- for the purchase of the truck after the complainant executed a loan cum hypothecation agreement. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose from Debasish Samanta and the Ops. are not liable for any defect of the vehicle purchased by the complainant from Debasish Samanta and complainant has set out a false story to avoid the liability of repayment of loan amount. So the Ops. prayed for dismissal of the present case.

It is for our consideration as to whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.          

Decisions with reasons

     Taking loan of the complainant from the Ops. to the tune of Rs.3,30,000/- is admitted. The complainant purchased the truck bearing No.WB/41B-5990 form its previous owner Debasish Samanta. The vehicle was not purchased form the Ops. The Ops. were simply the financer. Therefore it can not be said that the complainant is a consumer under the Ops. and they are liable for the alleged defect engine of the vehicle. In view of the case of the complainant, he is a consumer under Debasish Samanta who is not a party in this case. If we believe the contention of the complainant that he purchased the vehicle from Debasish Samanta as per information and insistence of the Ops, still then he does not become a consumer under the Ops. Hence we do not find any actionable claim against the Ops.

          Hence,

                      Ordered,

                                      that the case be dismissed on contest but considering the circumstances without any cost.

                                    

Dic. & Corrected by me.

                                                     I agree                  I agree                         

               

         President                            Member               Member                      President

                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.