Presented by Sri P.K.Dash, Member:- The Consumer complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986.
The gist of the complaint in nutshell is described here under:-
The Complainant/petitioner is a loanee under the Opposite Party No.1(one) i.e.. The financer and Opposite Party No.2(two) is the enforcement agent engaged by the Opposite Party No.1(one).
The Complainant/Petitioner has taken loan from the OP No.1(one) and purchased one TATA ACE vehicle bearing Regd No.OR-17-F 5815. The vehicle was being used by the Complainant to earn his livelihood.
The Complainant defaulted in repayment of loan installment and a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-(Rupees one lakh ten thousand)only was outstanding against him as per the terms and stipulation of the finance and in consequence of which the Opposite Party No.2(two) seized the aforesaid vehicle from the possession of the petitioner on 29/02/2012 as per the direction of OP No.1(one) and a seizure list was handed over to the petitioner mentioning the conditions of vehicle.
The Petitioner/Complainant then deposited the afore mentioned amount with the Opposite Party No.1(one) and then the Opposite Party No.1(one) issued one release order vide letter NO. DBE/SME/54 Dt.24/05/2012 to release the seized vehicle in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant when present before the Opposite Party No.2(two) to take back the seized vehicle bearing No. OR-17-F-5815, he found some parts like pump, self, Radiator, back side glass and both seats of the vehicle were missed from the vehicle. The Complainant/Petitioner protested before the OP's about the same, refused to take delivery of the vehicle and demanded the delivery of the vehicle at the condition it was seized.
Pleader notice were served upon the OP's as they did not listen to the oral and written complaint of the petitioner and the OP's did not even think it proper to reply the pleader notices of the Complainant.
Further the Complainant contends that the installment amount were being deducted from the saving Bank Account of the petitioner and guarantor pending disposal of the case and a petition U/S 13(3B) has been preferred by the petitioner seeking direction of the forum for stay realizations of installment amount during pendency of the case. The allegation of the petitioner is that, for the arrange of the OP's he sustained a loss of about Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only which needs to be compensated.
The allegation of the Petitioner is that for the act of arrangement of the OP's he sustained a loss of about Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only which needs to be compensated.
The Complainant petitioner prays for a direction of the forum to stop realization of the installment amount during pending disposal of this case and a further direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand)only towards damages and for repairing the vehicle.
The Complainant/Petitioner files xerox copies of the following document his support of his contention.
Advocate Notice Dt.01/11/2012.
AD card issued infavour of Opposite Party No.1(one).
Seizure list issued by OP No.2(two).
IPO worth Rs.200/-(Rupees two hundred)only.
Having been noticed the Opposite Party No.1(one) appeared and filed his objection to the 13(3B) petition Dt.12/02/2012 of the petitioner and also version through his legal counsel and resorted a complete denial to the Complaint.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) has categorically denied about any knowledge about any seizure list issued to the petitioner by the Opposite Party No.2(two). Further denies the allegation of missing parts like pump, self, Radiator, back side glass and both seats of the vehicle while delivering the vehicle to the petitioner and also denies allegation of overt act or arragancy made against him by the petitioner and for which the petitioner sustained a loss of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only.
Further the Opposite Party No.1(one) in his defense asserted that the petitioner in his complaint has not specifically pleaded any negligence or deficiency in service against him and no cause of action arose to upheld a complaint against him.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) prays for dismissal of the complaint against him.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) relies on the following documents in support of his defense.
Letter Dt.24/05/12 written by the Complainant to the Chief Manager, S.B.I., Bargarh (Xerox copy).
Letter Dt.24/05/2012 written by the guarantor of the petitioner i.e. Rambai Jagat to the C.M., S.B.I, Bargarh (Xerox copy).
Account statement of the Complainant vide Account No. 30646323956 in S.B.I., Bargarh in respect of the loan.(Original).
Being noticed, the Opposite Party No.2(two) appeared and filed his version through his advocate denying all the allegations made against him in the complaint.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) contends that as per the instruction of the Opposite Party No.1(one), the repossession of the vehicle bearing No. OR-17-F-5815 was done on Dt.29/02/2012 in front of the Complainant and the villagers. Further contention of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is that the alleged components/ parts like pump, self, radiator, back side glasses and both seats were not available in the vehicle at the time of seizure and the Complainant has sold those parts prior to the seizure of the vehicle. Nothing has been removed from the vehicle by this Opposite Party.
Further the Opposite Party No.2(two) contends that it came to his knowledge that some parts of the vehicle have been stolen as alleged by the petitioner in view of the letter No. CM/Gen/55/54 Dt.18/06/2012 issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to him. The Complainant/Petitioner even never approached the Opposite Party No.2(two) to take back the vehicle and falsely complicated this Opposite Party to tarnish its image and to extort money from Opposite Party N0.2(two). Further the Opposite Party No.2(two) alleges a vexations trial against him and prays for dismissal of the complaint against him.
No documents or evidence adduced by the Opposite Party NO.2(two) in his support.
Gone through the evidence on record, pleadings of the parties and heard argument made by the Parties, the issues likely to be decided as follows:-
Is there any necessity to stop realization of installment amount during pending finalizations of this case ?
Is there any deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties in providing service to the Complainant ?
For what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
Solution to issue No.1(one).
The Complainant had taken a loan from the Opposite Party No.1(one) vide loan account No.30646323956 in the S.B.I., Bargarh branch to purchase the alleged vehicle bearing No. OR-17-F-5815 and outstanding of loan amount was pending against the Complainant. This fact is admitted by the Complainant in his complaint petition as well as it is established from the letter Dt.24/05/2012 of the petitioner and his guarantor to Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Bargarh and from the account statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1(one). The Complainant had preferred a petition U/s 13(3B) of Consumer Protection Act-1986 on Dt.12/02/2013 seeking redressal of the Forum to stay realization of installment amount during pendency of the dispute between the parties and the petition has been rejected by the Forum vide its order Dt.19/02/2013 as because it is the contractual right of the Opposite Party No.1(one) to realise the loan installment and this Forum feels no necessity to intefer in the process of realization of loan installment by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the issue No.1(one) is answered accordingly.
Solution to issue No.2(two).
The specific allegation of the Complainant that as per the release order vide letter No.DBE 15ME/54 Dt.24/05/2012 of the Opposite Party No.1(one) to Opposite Party No.2(two) he appeared before the Opposite Party No.2(two) for repossession of vehicle but to his utter dismay he found parts like pump, self, radiator, back side glasses and both side two seats were missing from the alleged vehicle bearing No. OR-17-F-5815 and this fact was agitated by the Complainant before both the Opposite Parties.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) denies his knowledge to this allegation and Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version alleges that those parts described above were missing from the vehicle at the time of seizure of vehicle on Dt.29/02/2012 and further alleges that the Complainant has removed those parts from the vehicle and sold it and to extort money makes false allegation against him. As per the inventory list/seizure list prepared by the Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.29/02/2012 in front of the Complainant and villages, it is mentioned that all four tyres and body were damaged at the time of seizure of vehicle but it is not mentioned as to missing of parts like pump, self, radiator, back side glasses and both seats. The vehicle was all along present in the custody of Opposite Party No.2(two) from the date of seizure and the counter allegation of Opposite Party No.2(two) as to missing of alleged parts/components from the vehicle at the time of seizure is nothing but, it is only to escape from the legal liability fixed on him and this contention of Opposite Party No.2(two) is not accepted by this Forum and this is certainly a deficiency in service as per Sec 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the Opposite Party No.2(two) is held responsible for the same.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) has engaged the Opposite Party No.2(two) as an enforcement agent to carryout seizure of vehicle on behalf of Opposite Party No.1(one) in case of any default in repayment of loan installment. It is the liability of the enforcement agent i.e. the Opposite Party No.2(two) as well as of the employer i.e. the Opposite Party No.1(one) to safe guard the property/vehicle while it is in their custody. For any loss or damage accrued to the property/vehicle, both the Opposite Party's are liable and the contention of Opposite Party No.1(one) having no knowledge of missing of parts or components from the vehicle in the custody of Opposite Party No.2(two) is not believable and acceptable by this Forum. Hence Opposite Party No.1(one) being the master of Opposite Party No.2(two) is also jointly and severally responsible and liable for this deficiency. The issue No.2(two) is answered accordingly.
Solution to issue No.3(three).
From the discussion made above and evidence available in the case record, it is well established that the alleged parts/components of the vehicle bearing No. OR-17-F-5815 are missed from the vehicle while in the custody of Opposite Party No.2(two). Hence the Complainant is entitled for damages for repairing of vehicle and also for the loss of livelihood for unnecessary detained of the vehicle for months together in the custody of Opposite Party No.2(two). The answer to issue No.3(three) is made accordingly.
Having regards to all the factors affecting the disposal of the Complaint in its proper sense this Forum arrived at a conclusion and order as follows:-
- O R D E R -
The Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) directed, jointly and severally, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only to the Complainant towards damages and repairing of vehicle bearing No. OR-17-F-5815, within thirty days from the date of order. Failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12%(twelve percent) per annum till the date of realization of entire compensation amount.
The complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Smt. Anjali Behera) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
