Tripura

StateCommission

A/50/2017

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Nivea Baidya (Paul) - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. R.K Bhatra, Mr. A.Kalita, Mr. N.De, Miss. M. Hore

23 May 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

Case No.A. 50.2017

1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

Having its registered office at Nanavati Mahalaya,

Mumbai - 400 001 (Maharashtra).

And one of its Branch Office at

87, H.G. Basak Road (1st Floor),

Opp. Madan Mohan Mandir,

Agartala, West Tripura - 799001.

[Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr. Anuj Kumar Gogoi, S/o Budheswar Gogoi]

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties.

1. Smt. Nivea Baidya (Paul),

W/o Shri Nanda Dulal Pal,

Masterpara, P.O. Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala,

Agartala, West Tripura - 799001.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

For the Appellant:                                          Mr. Narayan De, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                       Absent.

Date of Hearing:                                             24.04.2018.

Date of Delivery of Judgment:                       23.05.2018.         

J U D G M E N T

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. against the judgment dated 12.06.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala  in Case No. C.C. 31 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) directing the appellant Tata Motors Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party nos.1 and 2) to issue the NOC in favour of the petitioner and also to pay compensation amounting to Rs.35,000/- to the petitioner for the loss sustained by her. The amount is to be paid within one month, if not paid; it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.     

2. Heard Mr. Narayan De, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant Tata Motors Finance Ltd. None appeared for the respondent-petitioner.  
3. Facts of the case in short are that, the petitioner purchased one vehicle and took loan for Rs.3,64,500/- from the appellant, Tata Motors Financier, the opposite party no.1. The loan amount is to be paid by the petitioner by way of installments. 1^st and 2^nd installment @ Rs.7,300/- totalling Rs.14,600/- was paid by her. 3^rd installment amounting to Rs.8,230/- was also paid. Thereafter, EMI @ Rs.8,135/- was paid through 11 numbers of post dated cheque issued in favour of the appellant, Tata Motors Finance, the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 has collected all installments through the post dated bank cheques. Full and final payment was made on 01.10.2014, but the opposite party no.1 refused to issue 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the petitioner. As according to the appellant, all installments were not paid, but according to the petitioner, she had paid all the installments. As ‘No Objection Certificate’ was not issued, the petitioner could not collect the valid papers from the Registration Authority for which she could not run her vehicle. Registration Authority did not issue the road permit to her as the 'No Objection Certificate' was not issued. As a result, she suffered huge loss for deficiency of service of the appellant-opposite party nos.1 and 2. Hence, she filed an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum claiming compensation amounting to Rs.7,52,000/-. 
4. Notice was sent to the appellant-opposite party nos.1 and 2 as well as one Niladri Motors, the opposite party no.3, but the appellant, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. did not appear. At the last stage of the case, opposite party no.3, Niladri Motors appeared and filed written objection stating that they were not the necessary party in this case and there was no deficiency of service on their part as alleged by the petitioner.
5. Petitioner produced the loan agreement, copy of the advocate notice, reply to the advocate notice filed by the Tata Motors Finance Ltd., copy of ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued earlier, copy of Permit issued by the Transport Authority earlier and the copies of bank account statement as well as the demand draft of Rs.2,000/- as required under law. Petitioner also submitted her statement on affidavit and also cross examined by the opposite party no.3. 
6. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment.
7. Mr. De, Ld. Counsel at the time of hearing while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment has submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the appellants, i.e. the opposite party no.1 and 2 for their non-appearance in the complaint case, as on receipt of the notice, one Advocate was entrusted with the case to appear before the learned District Forum, but he did not appear and if any negligence was there on the part of the Advocate engaged by the appellant, the opposite party no.1 and 2 should not suffer for such negligence. On query of this Commission regarding the order dated 23.02.2018, he has submitted that the affidavit could not be filed as directed by the Commission in its order dated 23.02.2018 as he was not aware about the name of the Ld. Advocate entrusted by the appellant, Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
8. On 08.12.21017, the prayer for condonation of 65 days was allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the petitioner and the matter was fixed for admission hearing on 29.12.2017. On 29.12.2017 Ld. Counsel for the appellant Mr. De prayed for some time for obtaining instructions which was also allowed and finally the appeal was admitted on 30.01.2018. On 23.02.2018 the appellant was directed to submit an affidavit stating the name of the advocate so that this Commission could call for an affidavit from the said advocate, but the appellant did not file any affidavit as directed by this Commission.
9. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record. The learned District Forum in its findings stated as follows:-

“9. We have gone through the bank statement. It is found that on 02.07.11 Rs.8,135/- installment was paid in favour of Tata Motors. Every month this amount was paid. There was missing amount in the month of May, 2011. In that month Rs.8,135/- was not paid though post dated cheques was handed over to O.P. But on 24.02.12 amount of Rs.8,230/- was paid. On 02.02.12 again Rs.8,135/- was paid. Demand notice was given by Nivea Baidya Pal on 10.03.15. In response to that Tata Motors Finance Ltd. informed that 4th installment Rs.8135/- was due on 02.05.11 and it was not paid till 22.02.12. That may be true as it was paid on 24.02.12. It is also stated that due to rise of insurance premium Rs.6235/- was debited through account on 18.01.13 towards insurance policy premium. Again for the year 2014-15 Rs.4810/- was debited. In case of late payment over due charges required to be paid and total Rs.26,585/- was due. From the letter it is found that Tata Finance Ltd. claimed Rs.26,585.90/-. How the amount is calculated is not clear. What amount was paid as premium of insurance policy not clarified. Tata Motors did not appear before this Forum to justify that they had any valid reasons for not issuing the 'No objection' Certificate. The matter of hike of insurance premium was not informed to petitioner & failure to collect the installment in May, 2011 lies on Tata Finance as it had scope to collect EMI.

10. We have gone through the 'No Objection' certificate issued by the Tata Motors Finance earlier time to time. On 04.05.12 Tata Motors Finance Collection Department informed Registering Authority of the vehicle that the party paid all dues for the said vehicle. No dues on date. It is clearly stated that on 04.05.12 all dues paid but in the letter it is stated that dues not cleared up to 22.02.12. Matter of hike of insurance premium also not mentioned while issuing the 'No Objection' Certificate. 'No Objection' Certificate was issued by Tata Motors informing the DTO on 11.08.14. Such NOC was reissued by Collection Department, Arunabhoy Ghosh. On 25.2.13, 24.01.14, 17.10.12 time to time 'No Objection' certificate by Collection Department authorized by Finance company was issued. From all these it is found that 'No Objection' certificate is required for running the commercial vehicle. It is required for the running of vehicle. Road permit only renewed by the 'No objection' certificate issued by the financier. 

11. From the evidence it is found that the vehicle of the petitioner was converted to commercial vehicle and for this commercial vehicle Road Permit is required. But D.T.O. did not issue the Road Permit for the want of 'No objection' certificate from financier. Tata Motors Finance did not assign any cogent evidence to support that any loan installment was due to be paid. From the evidence on record it is established that petitioner, Nivea Baidya Pal paid all the installments as per agreement. Inspite of that final 'No Objection' Certificate was not issued. As a result petitioner suffered huge loss. She could not ply the vehicle and due to that she had to pay huge amount for driver and other expenditure for such deficiency of service by Tata Motors Finance.”  

According to us, the appellant Tata Motors Finance Ltd. failed to appear before the learned District Forum to justify that it has any valid reasons for not issuing the ‘No Objection Certificate’ as required by the petitioner. Not only that, the matter of hike of the insurance premium was not informed to the petitioner and failure to collect the installment in May, 2011 lies on Tata Finance as it had the scope to collect the EMI as stated by the learned District Forum.

Regarding the submission of Ld. Counsel of the appellant to the effect that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant-opposite party nos.1 and 2 for non-appearance of their Ld. Advocate before the learned District Forum and negligence, if any, that was with the Ld. Advocate of the appellant who was entrusted to conduct the case before the learned District Forum cannot be accepted as the appellant neither disclosed the name of the lawyer nor stated in the grounds of the appeal as to why their Ld. Counsel could not appear before the learned District Forum. We are of the considered view that for non-appearance of the Ld. Advocate entrusted by the appellant-opposite party nos.1 and 2, the petitioner should not suffer and the learned District Forum also cannot wait with the docket. We are of the opinion that the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong while passing the impugned judgment.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.