Punjab

Sangrur

CC/405/2016

Deepak Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA Motor Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

20 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                    

                                                Complaint No.  405

                                                Instituted on:    25.05.2016

                                                Decided on:       20.12.2016

 

Deepak Singh aged about 25 years son of Nirmal Singh, resident of village Akoi Sahib, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             TATA Motor Finance Limited, SCO 20, 1^st Floor, City Centre, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

2.             Krishna Auto Sales, Mehlan Road, Near Indian Oil Depot, Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :               Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Deepak Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that OP number 2 apprised the complainant that there is a scheme that if any person pays 10% of the price of the vehicle in advance, then the remaining amount shall be financed by OP number 1 and the OP number 2 also offered free insurance for the vehicle and further offered that the rate of interest shall be 9% per annum.  As such, the complainant make up his mind to purchase TATA Xenon RX pickup vehicle for Rs.5,70,000/-.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.57,000/- to OP number 2 and the remaining amount was got financed from OP number 1 and the OP number 1 obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank printed proforma and also took required documents as well as 24 blank cheques as security. It is further averred that the loan amount was to be repaid in 47 equal monthly instalments under contract number 5001201543. It is further averred that the complainant also paid Rs.40,000/- in cash for getting the vehicle registered.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant paid 10 instalments against the loan to the OP number 2 and thereafter due to family dispute, the complainant could not pay the instalments due for the month of December 2013 and January 2014.  Further case of the complainant is that in the last week of January, 2014, the goons of the OP number 1 visited the house of the complainant and asked to pay Rs.45,000/- being due instalments as well as penalty, but the complainant showed his inability to pay the same, as such they took the forcible possession of the vehicle.

 

3.             It is further averred that in the second week of February, 2014, the complainant visited the office of OP number 1 and requested to release the vehicle by accepting the balance due instalments, who assured that they will get the approval from the higher authorities, but nothing happened.  Further it is stated that in the month of August, 2014, the complainant came to know that the OP number 1 illegally, arbitrarily and without his knowledge sold the vehicle to the third party. It is further stated that the OP number 1 also charged an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of insurance, but no policy was supplied. It is further stated that due to illegal selling of the vehicle by the OPs, the complainant suffered heavy loss, as he had already deposited about an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- and requested to refund the amount of the vehicle, but nothing happened.  Further it is stated that in the month of October, 2015, the complainant was shocked to receive a telephone call from the OP number 1, whereby they demanded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant, as such the complainant approached the OP number 1 to get the details, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay the balance amount after adjusting the remaining loan amount, that the OP be directed to return all the blank security cheques, and further claimed Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further stated that the there is a provision of arbitration provided in the terms and conditions of the policy, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint.  It is further stated that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose, as such the complaint is not maintainable.  It is further stated that the Op provided another opportunity to the complainant by issuing a pre sale notice dated 22.2.2014 before the auction of the financed vehicle asking him to repay the loan dues, but the complainant did not bother to repay the loan dues due to which the said vehicle was auctioned n 30.7.2014 to the highest bidder for Rs.2,40,000/- and the complainant is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,08,864.78 to the OP arising as loss on sale of the financed vehicle.  On merits, it is admitted that the OP number 1 financed the vehicle in question at 17% per annum interest (computed on monthly rest basis on internal rate of return) and the same is mentioned in the loan agreement, which was duly signed by the complainant. It is further stated that as per the record of the OP, the amount of Rs.569,387/- was financed by the OP and the complainant did not pay any down payment of Rs.57,000/- to OP number 2. It is further stated that no blank papers were ever got signed from the complainant. It is stated that at the time of surrender of the vehicle on 4.2.2014, the complainant was under heavy loan default to the tune of Rs.58,897/-.  It is further stated that as per the statement of account till 4.2.2014, the complainant had paid only 7 loan instalments amounting to Rs.1,24,950/- against the total dues of Rs.1,77,460/- apart from future loan dues.  It is stated further that the complainant paid the instalments after the due date of 11^th of every month, as such he was also liable to pay the delayed payment charges as per the loan agreement.  It is further stated that after surrender of vehicle  pre sale letter was sent to the complainant requesting to pay the pending loan dues, but all in vain.  It is stated further that still an amount of Rs.3,08,864/- is due against the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

5.             Record shows that OP number 2 was proceeded exparte on 12.08.2016.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of retail invoice, Ex.C-3 copy of delivery challan, Ex.C-4 copy of insurance policy and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.Op1/1 affidavit along with annexure Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7 and closed evidence.

 

7.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  dismissal, for these reasons.

 

8.             At the outset, a bare perusal of the complaint as well as written reply reveals that the complainant took a loan of Rs.5,70,000/- from the OP number 1 for purchase of a Tata Xenon RX Pickup from OP number 2 who is alleged to be the sister concern of the OP number 1.  The case of the complainant is that the OPs have forcibly took the possession of the above said vehicle from the custody of the complainant and sold the same to the third party on the lesser amount, which is a clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 1 is that the complainant has himself handed over the vehicle to the OP number 1 as he failed to pay the instalments of the loan.   Another allegation of the complainant is that the Ops at the time of sanctioning of the loan took  blank cheques and got signed various blank proformas.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant has not produced any receipt showing that the OPs had received any blank cheques from the complainant nor there is any proof on the file that the OPs took the vehicle in question forcibly from the complainant.  Moreover, in the present case, the complainant has levelled serious allegations of forcibly taking the possession of the vehicle in question from the complainant and sold the same to the other party at the lesser rate than the prevailing market rate. But, the Ops have stated that the vehicle in question was sold by them with the due consent of the complainant as he himself handed over the possession of the vehicle at his own due to non payment of instalments.   In the circumstances, we feel that in the present case, there is dispute over the facts i.e. amount of finance, forcible possession of the vehicle in question and further selling of the vehicle at a lesser price than the market, as such, we feel that complicated questions of law and facts and fraud and forgery are levelled, as such, we feel that this complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum and in the present case proper course for the complainant is to approach the Civil Court in the matter since such allegations respective to the rights of the parties cannot be determined in summary matter by the forum under the consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is also held in Nirmal Kaur versus State Bank of India and another 2011(2) CLT 523, wherein the Hon’ble HP State Commission has held as: “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963, Section 14- Summary jurisdiction. Banking service – Fixed deposits – Fraud and forgery and connivance of bank have been levelled on the part of the bank with regard to FDR’s. In the present case proper course for the appellant is to approach the Civil court in the matter since such allegation respective rights of the parties cannot be determined in summary manner by the Forum under the CP Act. Forum below could not have decided the case on merits by concluding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Complaint not maintainable. The period during which this case remained pending with the Forum below/the commission, the appellant will be entitled for the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act.

 

 

9.             Accordingly, we find that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present case as complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach any other court/Forum for redressal of his grievance, if he so desired.

 

10.           A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                December 20, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           Presiden

                                                                                                        

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member