Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/125/2019

Sunil Biswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sidhi Durga Agro & Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.C.R.Pradhan

23 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION JAGATSINGHPUR
JAGATSINGHPUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/125/2019
( Date of Filing : 25 Oct 2019 )
 
1. Sunil Biswal
po-Asakana ps-Balikuda
Jagatsinghpur
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sidhi Durga Agro & Automobiles
Plot No-197/3115 Industrial Estate champanath Bhawan C.k.sahoo lane Nuapada cuttack-753010
2. The branch Manager DCB bank Ltd
At/po-collegesqure cuttack-753001
3. The Branch manager Reliance company ltd
jagatsinghpur-754103
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. MADHUSMITA SWAIN MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 23 Mar 2023
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                              JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to supply the original invoices, copy of loan agreement and repayment, schedule, regd. Certificate of the financed tractor and insurance papers, waive out delay payment charges/interest for the period from the date of finance till date and pay compensation for mental agony and harassment, cost of litigation”.

            The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant No.1 is an unemployed young man purchased a tractor from opposite party No.1 being financed by opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 assured him to get it registered in the office of R.T.O., within a week and hand over him the R.C. Book, Insurance documents but it is a matter of regret that the even after more than one and half years from the date of aforesaid transaction, the opposite party No.1 neither handed over him the R.C. book of the tractor or insurance papers for which the vehicle is standing behind the backyard of his house in his village as he is unable to ply the same due to non availability of the aforesaid necessary documents.   

            Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating as under;

            The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 08.10.2018 transferred through his bank and thereafter the opposite party No.1 handed over the tractor to the complainant. But when the complainant was unable to pay the rest of the amount the opposite party No.1 sent a letter on 12.10.2019 by demanding the pending payment and thereafter, the complainant neither replied the same and in order to hidden himself to make the payment of the loan amount he filed a false case against the opposite parties.

            The opposite parties No.2 & 3 filed written version stating as under;

            The complainants have failed to discharge their contract obligations to pay the loan installments for which the opposite parties bank have been constrained to invoke the Arbitration clause contained in the loan agreement and arbitration proceeding was initiated and notice of the said proceeding have been sent to the complainants and they preferred not to appear before the learned Arbitrator. Thereafter the learned Arbitrator proceeded in the matter and finally passed the Arbitral Award on 20.8.2019 in the Arbitration Case No.448/2019. The loan cum hypothecation agreement was executed between the complainant and opposite parties bank on 31.01.2018 for the said vehicle and the amount is repayable in 59 monthly installments star ting from 05.3.2018 to 05.01.2023 @ Rs.11,827/- save and except the last installment which is Rs.13,560/-. The complainant has failed to pay the installment dues and the complainant is liable to pay the opposite parties of Rs.1,53,569/- towards arrear dues excluding future installment dues amounting to Rs.4,51,159/- as on 31.10.2019.

            Complainant has purchased the tractor from the opposite party No.1 taking loan from opposite party No.2 both belong to Cuttack as such this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction under C.P. Act, 1986, opposite party No.3 has no connection with complainant may be a branch of opposite party No.2 but no way concerned with complainant but only to bring jurisdiction opposite party No.3 has been made party.

            Complainant on getting notice from opposite party No.1 has approached this Commission which goes to show that complainant was running the vehicle without number which is not permissible under M.V. Act and his connivance with opposite party No.1 cannot be ruled out. It is the sole responsibility of opposite party No.1 U/s.41 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to register the vehicle which is quoted below;

            S.41.Registration,how to be made.-(1)An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such documents, particulars and information and shall be made within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

            Provided that where a motor vehicle is jointly owned by more persons than one, the application shall be made by one of them on behalf of all the owners and such applicant shall be deemed to be the owner of the motor vehicle for the purposes of this Act.

            (Provided further that in the case of a new motor vehicle, the application for registration in the State shall be made by the dealer of such motor vehicle, if the new motor vehicle is being registered in the same state in which the dealer is situated).

            It is not at all disputed that the vehicle was purchased from opposite party No.1 and it was to be registered within the State and opposite party No.1 has failed in his duty to register the vehicle in complete violation of Section 41 as quoted above.

            Several cases have come to our knowledge regarding non- registration of tractors in rural areas causing loss of revenue to public exchequer for which we direct our registry to send copy of the order to RTO, Cuttack, STA, Cuttack and Secretary Transport and Vigilance Department to enquire about non registration of particularly tractors in RTO, Cuttack and necessary steps may be taken to recover the revenue of state exchequer. The role of complainant as hand in gloves cannot be ruled out, as complainant has sat over the matter for 4 and ½ years after purchasing the vehicle and did not make any correspondence to register the vehicle as such complainant is not above suspicion in the racket by plying the vehicle without registration and paying tax to Government exchequer causing loss to public revenue. 

            Besides above Arbitration proceeding has already started and thus this Commission has no jurisdiction and particularly when only two installments has been paid by complainant as such in view of the settled principle of law and lack of jurisdiction the consumer complaint dismissed. No cost.   

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MADHUSMITA SWAIN]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.