In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4^th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.111/2012.

1)                   Sudipti Maity,

            P.O. Athilagori, P.S. Contai, Dist. Midnapore(East).                                 ---------- Complainant

---Versus---                        

1)                   Tats Motor Finance Ltd.

            Head Office at 3^rd Floor, Nanavati, Mahalayaya,

            18, Homi Modi Street, FortMumbai 400001.

            Service through   Branch Manager,

            5/1,  Hungerford  Street,

P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17.                                                    ---------- Opposite Party

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   14    Dated  07/10/2013.

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a Tata ACE L.M.V. vehicle no. WB-31-3737 by paying cash to Paraj Motors (P) Ltd. amounting to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.18,850/- on 11.6.09 and 29.6.09 respectively. Complainant purchased the said vehicle for earning her livelihood. At the time of purchasing the vehicle Paraj Motors (P) Ltd. issued a tax invoice dt.27.6.09 which shows that the value of the vehicle is Rs.2,82,850/- out of total consideration money was financed by Tata Motors Finance Ltd. (herein after referred as o.p). Accordingly, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant and the o.p. financed a sum of Rs.2,44,000/- along with financial charges Rs.98,712/- for 48 months i.e. Rs.2056/- per month from the date of finance. Complainant has already paid Rs.1,90,733/-. All on a sudden o.p. forcefully repossess the said vehicle without giving any notice to the complainant and therefore, the complainant immediately issued a legal notice dt.23.12.11 for releasing the vehicle with an undertaking for payment of outstanding instalments. O.p. replied to the legal notice on 24.1.12. Complainant has argued that o.p. illegally demanded a sum of Rs.2,08,389/- without any legal procedure. Due to the act of o.p., the complainant is suffering from huge loss. Therefore, o.p. is liable to compensate the complainant from the date of forceful repossession i.e. 21.12.11. Therefore, complainant prayed for direction upon the o.p. to stop such type of unfair trade practice and not to sell the vehicle in question and to release the same. Complainant has also prayed for compensation for her mental agony and harassment.

            O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them. In their w/v o.p. has stated that complainant is not a consumer as it was found from the field investigation report that she runs other proprietorship business and hence the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’. O.p. has financed Rs.2,47,000/- along with financial charge of Rs.97,812/- and this amount must be repaid through 47^th EMI, 1^st to 46^th instalment for Rs.8140/- each and 47^th instalment for Rs.2472/- on every 2^nd day of the month. It is also stated that prepossession notice was sent to the complainant on 6.4.11, but complainant did not pay any heed. O.p. also sent legal notice on 22.11.11. Thereafter, o.p. repossessed the said vehicle on 21.12.11 and also informed the local P.S. O.p. has also stated that as per loan agreement complainant was to make repayment on the stipulated due dates and not at the whimsical wish of the complainant. As per repayment schedule the overdue charges incurred and the interest thereupon was added. Therefore, o.p. prays for dismissal of the instant case as there is no deficiency in service on their part.

Decision with reasons:-                  

            We have gone through the record along with evidence and pleadings of the both parties. It is admitted fact that complainant has purchased the vehicle bearing no.WB-31-3737 on 21.12.11 and took financial assistance from o.p. From documents filed by o.p. we have observed that legal notice was sent to the complainant and they have demanded for the outstanding amount from the complainant. But the complainant did not pay any heed to this effect.

            Complainant has not showed any document that she is not a defaulter and paid the EMIs regularly. From the document we have observed that EMIs were not paid as per terms of the agreement.

            The evidence filed on behalf of complainant is signed by Authorised Representative of the complainant which is not at all tenable in the eye of law and same cannot be accepted. 

            At the time of argument ld. lawyer of o.p. filed the copy of Arbitration Case no.LOT197/N4817 of 2011, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. vs. Sudipti Maity and the matter was decided before the sole Arbitrator. Ld. lawyer of o.p. has also cited the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission passed in R.P. No.3319 of 2012 in which Hon’ble National Commission has observed that the financer can repossess the vehicle if the agreement permits the financer to take repossession of the financed vehicle. We also rely upon the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission passed in RP no. 689/2012. In this instant case also due notices were sent by o.p. before reposition. In view of the above judgments complainant has failed to substantiate her case. Therefore, the case of the complainant fails.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost. That the interim order passed on 10.12.12 vide order no.8 thus vacated.