DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE NO. 22/2008 Date of filing of the Case: 20.03.2008 Complainant | Opposite Parties | 1)Nitai Chandra Mandal, Age 36 years S/o. Late Goyanath Mandal 2) Sanjay Mandal aged 30 Years S/o. Gopal Chandra Mandal 3) Saroda Mandal W/o. Gopal Chandra Mandal Vill. Paschim Narayanpur, Jagabandhutola P.O. Janakiramtola P.S. Manikchak, Distt.- Malda 4) Gopal Chandra Mondal, ( Guarantor ) Father – Lt. Goyanath Mondal Vill. West Narayanpur, Jagabandhutola, P.O. Janakiramtola, P.S.- Manikchak, Distt.- Malda | 1. | State Bank of India Malda Main Branch Malda | 2. | Chief Manager State Bank of India Malda Main Branch, Malda P.O. & Distt. - Malda | 3. | Branch Manager State Bank of India Malda Main Branch, Malda P.S. – Englishbazar, P.O. & Distt. - Malda | | | | | | | | |
Present: | 1. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member | 2. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member | | |
For the Petitioner : Sovan Dasgupta, Chabilal Mondal, Advocates For the O.P.s : None appeared Order No. 02 Dt. 10.04.2008 Petitioners file hazira alongwith ld.advocate. Peruse the petition of complaint. Hd. the ld.advocate on behalf of the petitioner at length. The contents, as it appears, discloses that the petitioner has become a hirer of the tractor, in question, by virtue of his contract with the Bank as it appears from the documents filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is a hirer of one Swaraj make tractor no. WB65/6693 through State Bank of India, Malda Branch and he entered into a hire purchase agreement which reveals from the notice u/s 32 of the SARFAESI Act – 2002 filed alongwith the petition of complaint. The tractor, in question, was hypothecated to S.B.I., Malda and therefore Challan No. 17/03-04 dt. 26.06.2003 of Durga Machinery Mart, Manoskamana Road, Malda was issued in the name of S.B.I. , Malda in A/C of the present petitioner. Contd….P/2 P-2 Thus the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle because the ownership was vested in the aforesaid Bank. Ownership would have only been transferred to the petitioner when he had made payment of the dues. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition no. 357 of 1998 titled Tata Finance Ltd. Vs. Morjan Hossain & Sons vide Order dt. 13.02.2003 that ‘hire of the vehicle being ‘bailee’ of the owner does not have any proprietary right or interest as purchaser and consequently, he could not be termed as purchaser of the vehicle. Thus the petitioner cannot be termed as purchaser of the vehicle, so he does not come under definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in Sec. 2 (1) (d) (i) or d (ii) ’[2006 CTJ 695 (CP) (SCDRC) ]. Taking assistance of the salutory observation referred to hereinabove, this Forum has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not acquired the ownership of the tractor, in question, and as such he cannot be termed as ‘Consumer’ in terms of Sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act. Hence instant application cannot be entertained by this Forum. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law at proper Forum having jurisdiction over the matter. Let a copy of this order be given to the petitioner. Sd/- Sd/- Sumana Das A. K. Sinha Member Member D.C.D.R.F., Malda D.C.D.R.F., Malda |
