The instant case was heard and disposed of by the Ld. DCDRC, Jalpaiguri (henceforth will be referred as Ld. District Forum) under the Ld. Presidentship of Shri K. K. Kumai together with two others. The Ld. President of Ld. Lower Forum, Jalpaiguri is presently the Presiding Member of Siliguri Circuit Bench of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. For the sake of natural justice, the same case which was heard by the then Ld. President of DCDRC, Jalpaiguri may not be heard by the same judge in his capacity as Presiding Member of WBSCDRC of Siliguri Circuit Bench at the appeal level. Hence, the proposal for the constitution of Single Bench was sent to the State Commission vide letter no. 105/SCB/3J – 3/2023 dated 02/3/23.

Hon’ble President of the State Commission was kind enough to have accorded his kind permission and approval for the formation of Single Bench vide Memo no. 480(25) dated 27/03/23. Accordingly Single Bench was formed and has taken place on that date. Hence, the Single Bench heard the Appeal Petition along with the arguments of the Ld. Advocate and the disposed of the case.

The case in brief is that one Amos Pradahn, son of Nar Bahadur Pradhan, Resident of Soom First Division, Dhansur Dhura, Soom Tea Garden, PO – North Point, PS – Sadar & Dist. – Darjeeling decided to purchase a Royal Enfield Bullet and approached to M/s. Siliguri Distributors of Royal Enfield. The said distributor issued a tax invoice-credit memo dated 21/03/16 which had showed that the total price of the said Royal Enfield Classic 350ASH was Rs.1,32,705/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-two thousand seven hundred five) only as ex-showroom price(Annexure 1), Puja Finelease Ltd (henceforth to be referred as Finance Company) issued delivery order no. PPL/SLG/2 dated 21/3/16 to Siliguri Distributors, Sevok Road, which shows for Make – Royal Enfield, Model – Classica 350 ASG, colour – white and it was categorically mentioned in the said D.O. that the total price of the vehicle should not exceed to Rs.1,32,705/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-two  thousand seven  hundred   five)  only.   Out   of   the   total   price   Down   Payment   was Rs.52,705/- (Rupees fifty-two thousand seven hundred five) only and the loan component is Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only (Annexure 3). Accordingly, the Appellant/Complainant purchased the said Royal Enfield by making a down payment of Rs.52,705/- (Rupees fifty-two thousand seven hundred five) only, and availed a loan of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only from the Respondents/O.P. (said Finance Company). The terms and conditions of the said loan is Rs.4193/- (Rupees four thousand ninety-three) only as EMI for 24 (twenty-four) months out of which the first EMI was paid in cash and the rest 23 (twenty-three) EMIs were paid by cheques. The Appellant/Complainant purchased an insurance policy against the said Royal Enfield Bullet/motor bike from Reliance General Insurance Company covering the period from 21/3/16 to 20/3/17 (Annexure 2) and the details of the said vehicle are similar to those of (Annexure 1), the said motor bike was registered in Motor Vehicles Department, Siliguri, Govt of West Bengal being registration no. WB 74 AK 8950 dated 29/03/16 and was shown as hypothecated with the Respondents/O.P. (Puja Finelease Ltd.). The details of the said Royal Enfield motor bike are also similar (Annexures 2, 3 & 5). There is no conclusive proof that the Appellant purchased another Royal Enfield Bullet of higher/better quality above 350 cc. So, the price cannot be higher than Rs. 1,32,705/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-two thousand seven hundred five) only which was previously agreed upon by the all parties.

After the expiry of 24 (twenty-four) months of EMI payment, the Appellant/Complainant approached to the said Respondents nos. 1 & 2 (Finance Company) with the request to issue “No Objection Certificate” so that he can insert his own name in the Registration in respect of the said motor bike i.e.  in his own name in lieu of hypothecation to Puja Finelease Ltd. (Respondents nos. 1 &2). But the Respondents nos. 1 & 2 instead of issuing No Objection Certificate, demanded 6 (six) additional EMIs @ Rs4193/- (Rupees four   thousand   one   hundred   ninety-three) only   as   the   loan amount was allegedly shown as Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only instead of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only. But there is also no conclusive documentary evidence that the Respondents no. 1 & 2 (F.C.) extended the said loan to the tune of Rs.90000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only except Annexure 7 which the Respondents/OPs never informed either orally or in black white to the Appellant/Complainant that the loan amount sanctioned towards the purchase of the said Royal Enfield Bullet is Rs.90000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only instead of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only. Rather Annexure 3 the delivery order dated 21/3/2016 issued by the Respondents/OP corroborates the loan amount as Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only instead of the amount as Rs.90000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only. Being aggrieved and annoyed for not getting N.O.C. from the Respondents and further being asked to pay additional 6 (six) EMIs @ Rs.4193/-, the Appellant/Complainant approached to the Ld. Lower Forum.  As such the Appellant/Complainant filed a CC case being no. CC/4/20 in the Ld. Lower Forum with the request for direction to issue to the respondent/OP to issue NOC etc. so that he can register his own name in the registration of MV Department, Siliguri, Government of West Bengal.

The Ld. Lower Forum dismissed this petition on the ground that Annexures do not support his claim.

Decision with reasons

Probably, the Ld. Lower Forum passed such order of dismissal on the basis of Annexure 7 which is the internal Accounts Paper of the Respondents/O.P. against whom allegations of deficiency of service and unfair trade practices were slapped and without taking into considerations of the other documents, papers and records, specially, Annexure 1 to 5.  

Both the Ld. Advocates on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant and Proforma OP No 3 are present at the time of final hearing. As per the oral submission and on scrutiny of the papers/documents and records kept in the file, it is clear that all the papers from Annexure 1 - 5 shows that M/s. Siliguri Distributors of Royal Enfield Bullet issued tax invoice-credit dated 21/3/16 – (Annexure I) corroborated the claims of the Appellant/Complainant that he purchased the said motor bike the Royal Enfield Bullet of having 350 cc whose total price was Rs.1,32,705/- (Rupees one thirty-two thousand seven hundred five) only. The Annexure I give the details of the said motor bike which also mentioned CRM No. MR1104705522 Invoice No. INV0085151601548 Battery No. BAH0408Q208419 Key No. 1119 Booking No. BKNG00851511601920   Chassis No. ME3U355C1GC402150 and also categorically mentioned the description of the said motor cycle as Royal Enfield 350 cc/ASH and ex-showroom price of the same was mentioned as Rs.1,32,705/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-two thousand seven hundred five) only. Secondly, Annexure 2 of Reliance General Insurance Company also shows that the same class/kind of motor bike with same Engine No. U355C1GC141087 and Chassis No.  ME3U355C1GC402150 which was insured and the insured value of the said Royal Enfield Bullet was shown as Rs.1,26,070/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-six thousand seventy) only which is below the ex-showroom price and hence credible. Even Annexure 3 dated 21/3/16 issued by Respondents/OPs (Puja Finelease Ltd.) shows that Make - ROYAL ENFIELD Type - SOLO, Model - CLASSIC 350 cc, Color - WHITE etc. and the total price categorically mentioned that the total price of the said  Royal Enfield Bullet should not exceed Rs.1,32,705/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-two thousand seven hundred five) only, out of which loan was Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only and Down Payment was Rs.52,705/- (Rupees fifty-two thousand seven hundred five) only. Annexures IV, V, etc. issued by Respondents/OPs (finance company) show the receipts of the EMI cheques, etc.

It is crystal clear that the appellant/complainant purchased the said Royal Enfield Bullet/bike having 350 cc and purchased an insurance policy from Reliance General Insurance Company of Rs.1,26,070/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-six thousand seventy) only which is creditworthy against the ex-showroom’s price of Rs.1,32,705/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-two thousand seven hundred five) only. It is also undisputed that the appellant/complainant had cleared 24 (twenty-four) nos. of 24 EMIs @ 4193/- (Rupees four thousand one hundred ninety-three) only A TOTAL AMOUNT OF 4193×24 = Rs. 1,00,632 (Rupees one lakh six hundred thirty-two) only was paid by the appellant to the Respondents out of which Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only was loan amount and the rest of Rs.20,632/- (Rupees twenty thousand six hundred thirty-two) only as interest of the said loan which is also credible. The Respondents no. 1 & 2 (said finance company) do not contradict the same. But, when the Appellant/Complainant approached to the OP/Respondent (finance company) with the request to issue NOC for registering his own name in the Registration Form of PVD Siliguri, Govt. of West Bengal in place of hypothecation in the name of the said finance company, the Respondents/OP refused to issue NOC and demanded additional 6 (six) installments of EMI which is contradictory to their own paper/document like Delivery Order dated 21/3/16 (Annexure 3). The Respondents/OPs (finance company) nowhere and never issued loan sanction letter mentioning the loan amount as Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only in place of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only and that the Appellant/Complainant had to deposit 30 (thirty) EMIs @ Rs.4193/- instead of 24 (twenty-four) instalments. Moreover, Annexure 7 issued by the Respondent/OP shows that the Appellant/Complainant had cleared 24 (twenty-four) EMIs up to 26/3/2018 (24 EMIs). It is not clear why the Respondents (finance company) were insisting repayment of 30 (thirty) EMIs instead of 24 (twenty-four) instalments @ Rs.4193/- (Rupees four thousand one hundred ninety-three) only and the entire loan of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only was fully paid and cleared by the Appellant/Complainant, out of which Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only as loan and Rs.20632/- (Rupees twenty thousand six hundred thirty-two) only as interest which is also trustworthy, acceptable and credible. .

                     Moreover, the Respondents/OPs (i.e., the said finance company) did not never issue of loan sanction letter which is vital in this regard. Annexure 7 is nothing but a internal loan Repayment of Accounts of the said F.C. wherein the Loan Disbursement is shown as Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only. Interestingly, the said Annexure – 7 does not give the details of the vehicle except mentioning the “Make-Bullet”. In this sense, this Annexure is incomplete, not dependable, not credible/trustworthy. It would have been better had the Respondents/OPs mentioned all the details of the said Royal Enfield Bullet in Annexure 7. Thus, the demand for payment of additional/more 6 (six) EMIs @ 4193/- as per Annexure 7 does not stand on solid ground as it contradicts its own paper/document i.e., (Annexure 3) dated 21/3/2016 where the loan has shown as Rs. Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only and Down Payment is Rs.52,705/- (Rupees fifty-two thousand seven hundred five) only and the total ex-show room price of the said Enfield Bullet does not exceed Rs.1,32,705/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-two thousand seven hundred five) only. Ld. Lower Forum passed the order dated 08/7/22 solely depending on the paper marked as in Annexure 7 issued by the Respondents (Puja Finelease Ltd.) which is nothing but internal statement of loan accounts without mentioning the details of the Royal Enfield Bullet but mentioned Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only as loan component only which is not at all credible since the Respondents failed to prove the loan amount as Rs. 90,000/- only beyond doubt and hence it is not at all credible. There were no documents mentioning the loan amount as Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only anywhere in other papers/records. The total ex-showroom price of the said bullet was Rs.1,32,705/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-two thousand seven hundred five) only and total down payment of the complainant was Rs.52,705/- (Rupees fifty-two thousand seven hundred five) only (as per Annexure 3) so the loan component would be (Rs.1,32,705/- – Rs.52,705/-) = Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) onlyand not Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only. Annexure 3 categorically mentioned the price of the vehicle should not exceed to Rs.1,32,705/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-two thousand seven hundred five) only. So, the loan component cannot be Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only since the total cost price/ex-showroom price of the said vehicle is Rs.1,32,705/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-two thousand seven hundred five) only out of which Rs.52,705/- (Rupees fifty-two thousand seven hundred five) only is the DP and remaining Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only as loan component which was advanced by the Respondents/OPs (F.C.) Therefore, Annexure 7 is doubtful, vexatious, non-credible, confusing and contradictory. So, the contents of the Appellant/Complainant succeed. The Ld. Lawyer on behalf of the Proforma Respondent/OP No.3 also submitted that he is nowhere involved with the present issues of Loan/EMIs and Non issuance of NOC etc. and prays for relaxation from this case. Heard and considered. At the same time, Ld. Advocate of the Proforma No.3 identified and confirmed the said white coloured Royal Enfield Bullet Bike having 350 cc. The Ld. Lower Forum dismissed the case submitted by the Appellant/ Complainant solely on the basis of the papers/documents in Annexure 7 without taking cognizance/recognition of other papers/documents specially Annexures 1 to 5, which specifically mentioned the loan amount as Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only /- and not Rs.90000/- (Rupees ninety thousand). But there is no sanction letter which depicted the loan amount as Rs.90000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only. Annexures 1 & 3 categorically mentioned the loan amount as. Rs.80000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only and not Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only. The Respondents/OPs remained absent on several occasions. Respondent No. 2 was directed to show-cause why shall not the matter be disposed of on ex-parte basis on merits in his absence. (ORDER No. of 7 dated 27/4/2023). On the subsequent date of final hearing dated 14/6/23, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were neither present nor did they submit any reply to the Show-Cause issued vide Order no. 7dated 27/4/2023. So, it appears that Respondents neither appeared nor submitted any papers/documents in defence of them. So, the pleas/arguments of the Appellant/Complainant succeed. Thus, the Respondents cannot avoid its responsibility by not issuing NOC to the Appellant/Complainant and hence there is deficiency in service which caused mental anxiety and harassment. Moreover, Respondents nos. 1 & 2 showed the loan amount as Rs. 90000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only in place of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only which means that 4193 × 30 = Rs. 1,25,790/- is to be deposited as against Rs. 4193 × 24 = Rs. 1,00,632/- and thus they adopted the unfair trade practices by charging additional amount as (Rs. 1,25,790 – Rs. 1,00,632/-) Rs. 25,158/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand and one hundred five fifty-eight) only though they failed miserably to prove the loan amount of Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only beyond doubt.

                                                                                    Hence it is

                                                ODERED

That the appeal be and the same is allowed ex-parte on merits with costs.

(1)  That both the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is directed to issue NOC to the appellant/complainant within 1 (one) month from the receipt of this order.

(2) Proforma Respondent No.3 is nowhere involved in this squabble except being the seller and no claims/counter-claims involved with him. So Proforma Respondent No.3 is exonerated from this case as prayed for at present unless otherwise ordered/required.

(3)   Respondents/OP nos. 1 &2 are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) either severally or jointly to the Appellant/Complainant for deficiency in service for not issuing NOC to the Appellant/Complainant as compensation causing mental agony, harassment, mental pain caused to him due to non-issuance of N.O.C to the Appellant and for adopting unfair trade practices by the Respondent nos. 1&2 by showing the loan component as Rs.90000/- (Rupees ninety thousand) only in place of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) only & thereby demanding additional amount (i.e., EMI @ 4193 × 6) = Rs. 25,158/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand one hundred and fifty eighty) only.

(4)  Respondent Nos. 1&2 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) either jointly or severally to the appellant/complainant as legal costs.   

(5) The order of the Ld. Lower Forum is thus set aside.

The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant also prays for action u/s 420, 406 IPC etc. Which are not the considerable points of this Court. However, he is at liberty to proceed for action/relief as prayed for at the appropriate Forum/Court of Law, if he so desires.

Let the Copy of this order be served upon all the parties free of cost.

Let a Copy of this order also be served to the Ld. Lower Forum, DCDRC, Jalpaiguri immediately.

Thus, the instant case is hereby disposed of.