THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 56 of 2020

 

Smt. Tulsi Mandal @ Tulsi Bala Mandal,'

Wife of Late Kajal Mandal, 

C/O- Paresh Mandal, 

Purba Colony, Meghali Bandh, 

Vidyasagar, Near TSR Camp, 

West Tripura, Pin-799212, 

P.O. Baluban, P.S. Sidai. ...….................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Tata Motors Finance Limited,

10th Floor, 106, Makers Chambers III, 

Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nirman Point,

Mumbai, Maharastra- 400021(To be 

Represented by its General Manager).

 

 

 

2. Tata Motors Finance Limited,

Melarmath, Hari Ganga Basak Road,

Opposite Madan Mohan Mandir, Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura,

Pin- 799001.

(To be represented its Branch Manager).

 

3. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

3rd Floor, GRS tower, Akhaura Road, 

RMS Chowmuhani, Agartala,

District- West Tripura-799001.

(To be represented by its Branch Manager). ..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Sampad Choudhury,

  Smt. Rinku Shil,

  Learned Advocates.

    

For the O.P.  : Sri Dipankar Sarma,

  Sri Prasenjit Das,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 09.02.2022

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainants' case in short is that the complainant Smt. Tulsi Mandal @ Tulsi Bala Mandal citizen of Tripura and living in the above named address being a widow person and husband namely Kajal Mandal (now deceased) died on 04.04.2018.   That the husband of the complainant(now deceased) during his lifetime availed a vehicle taking loan from the O.P. No.1 vide loan contract no. 5002582594 dated 15.03.2018. for an amount of Rs.4,14,608/-finance charges was Rs.1,32,840/- and Insurance provision was Rs.60,000/-. Thus the total value was Rs.6,07,448/-. In the said Loan Agreement late Kajal Mandal was the principal borrower and the present complainant was co-borrower. O.P. No.2 being the local branch office of the O.P. no.1 at the time of issuance of the vehicle loan also forced Kajal Mandal to purchase Life Insurance Policy of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy no- OHDFELO002, to insure the risk of the loan amount in the event of death of the borrower and for that separate insurance premium of Rs.12,608/- was paid against the insurance policy. After sanction of vehicle loan the deceased husband of the complainant purchased the vehicle namely Tata Act MEGA XL from progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vide invoice no-PAPL/SALE/763/1718 for an amount of Rs.5,08,689/-. And the husband of the complainant paid Rs.94,081/- as initial hire amount and subsequently the said vehicle was registered in the name of Kajal Mandal vide registration no- TR 0135. The loan was  scheduled to be repaid/recovered within 4 years, i.e., 48 months out of which 1st premium amounting to Rs.13,128/- was taken by the O.P. No.1 as advance and the rest amount to be paid in 47 nos. of installments each amounting to Rs.12,920/-. The husband of the complainant during his life time paid only one installment amounting to Rs.13,128/- and thereafter her husband died on 04.04.2018. After death of the husband of the complainant, the complainant duly informed the matter to the O.P. No.2 and accordingly the concerned dealing officer of the O.P. No.2 advised the complainant to stop payment of the installment as they will recover the loan amount from the Life Insurance Policy of her husband which was taken for the purpose of recovery of loan in the event of death of the policy holder. Accordingly the complainant stopped the payment of loan installment as per advice of O.P. No.2. The husband of the complainant was never defaulter in payments of the loan installments in his lifetime and after his death the complainant also contacted with the O.P. no.2 and as per their verbal advice the complainant stopped the payments of loan installments. Thereafter suddenly on 31.10.2018 the O.P. no.2 seized the vehicle and took forceful possession over the vehicle. The O.P. No.2 prior to taking of forceful possession of the vehicle never place any demand notice to the complainant regarding the matter of outstanding loan amount nor they gave any single opportunity to the complainant to repay the outstanding loan amount. Complainant on so many occasions visited the office of the O.P. No.2 and requested them to give her the statement of loan account and she is ready to pay the outstanding amount and also requested them to release the vehicle as this vehicle is the sole source of earning of her family but the staffs of the O.P. no.2 did not pay any heed to her request and misbehaved with her. Finally on 27.01.2019 the O.P. No.2 called the complainant to come to their office and accordingly when the complainant reached to the office the staff of O.P. No.2 handed over a cheque vide no. 291153 dated 07.12.2019 drawn on HDFC Bank for Rs.84,953/- in the name complainant. Then the complainant again requested the staff of O.P. no.2 to provide her loan statement and also asked them to clarify her how the aforesaid amount of Rs.84,953/- was calculated but the staffs of the O.P. no.2 again refused to give any loan statement. Complainant also requested the O.P. no.2 to give her insurance policy of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. of her husband which was lying in the custody of the O.P. No.2 but they denied to provide nay information regarding that insurance policy. In the meantime the complainant came to know that the O.Ps sold out the said vehicle to one Swapan Debnath, son of Monmohan Debnath of Laxmipur, Khas Noagaon, Bodhjungnagar, West Tripura for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. Hence, this case.   

 

2. The O.Ps appeared and filed written objection denying all the allegations made by the complainants in their complaint petition. They have stated that the complaint is not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant submitted her examination in chief on affidavit as P.W. 1. Also produced 6 documents which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. 

 

On the other hand, O.P. submitted examination in chief on affidavit of one witness namely Sri Pritam Choudhury,  Area Legal Manager at Tata Motors Finance Ltd.  O.P. filed some documents at time of filing written objection which are marked as Exhibit- A Series. They have also produced 5 documents which are also marked as Exhibit- B Series. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(i) Whether the complaint is maintainable in law?

(ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/relief as prayed for?

 

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

We have heard arguments of both side at length. Learned Counsel Mr. Sampad Choudhury appearing for the complainant submitted that the O.P. without giving any notice ceased the vehicle from their possession though complainant is not defaulter. He further submits that O.P. also sold out the vehicle without giving any notice to the complainant. The action taken by the O.P. is illegal for which the complainant suffered a lot. Mr. Choudhury further submits that complainant also suffered mentally and she has been able to prove her case by adducing sufficient evidences and she is entitled to get compensation from the O.P. 

On the other hand learned advocate Mr. D. Sarma  submitted that the original borrower was the husband of the complainant and the complainant was also co-borrower. As per loan agreement husband of the complainant had to pay the loan amount by way of 47 installment but they failed to make the installment regularly and they have broken the terms and conditions of the agreement and for that reason O.Ps preferred arbitral proceeding. And as per interim order passed by the arbitrator the vehicle was ceased and after observing all formalities the vehicle was sold on auction and in this regard there was no illegality committed by the O.P. Mr. Sarma further submitted that it is settled law that if there is arbitrial award the Consumer Forum has no authority to set aside the arbitrial award. And Consumer Commission has no power to judge the arbitrial ward. He submits that this complaint is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed.

  

7. DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

All the points are taken up together for convenience. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both parties as well as evidences adduced from both sides. On perusal of the pleadings we find that it is admitted fact that arbitrial proceeding was drawn up against Kajal Mondal and Tulsi Mondal by the O.P. and the number of arbitration case was 1132 of 2019.  It is also admitted fact that the arbitrial award was made on 28.06.2019(Exhibit -1 Series). 

Operative portion of the award made at Para-16  runs as follows:-

''In the circumstances, I pass the following award:

a. The Respondent/s shall pay to the Claimant a sum of Rs.505987.35/- together with further interest therein at the rate of 18% per annum from 19th April 2019 till payment  and /or realization.

b. It is declared that the amount mentioned in clause[a] above is secured by a valid and subsisting Hypothecation of vehicle being ACE MEGA XL bearing Registration No.TR01AG1935, Engine No.8LTDICRAIL08ARYS14132 and Chasis No.MAT535051JYA02698 in favour of the claimant and the claimant is entitled to enforce and realize the amounts due and payable by the Respondent/s by recovering /taking possession of that said vehicle and sell the same by public auction or private treaty to the best available market price and appropriate  the sale proceeds thereof towards the outstanding amounts due and payable by the respondent/s.

 c. All interim orders passed in the intervening period are also hereby made absolute.

 d. The respondents/s shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of arbitration and Arbitrator's Fees.''

There is no dispute about the arbitrial award. From the record we find that this complaint case is filed on 14.08.2020. So, it is crystal clear that complaint is filed after arbitrial award was made. At the time of argument Learned Counsel Mr. Sarma relying upon the decision of the Apex Court (Indian Bank Vrs. M/S Blue Jaggers Estate Ltd.) submitted that when NPA is declared in respect of any loan then the Consumer Commission can not look into the matter. Mr. Sarma also relied upon the decision of the National Commission(M/S Magma Finwork Ltd. Vrs. Gulzar Ali) reported in 2016 (2) CPJ 231. Relying upon this decision Mr. Sarma submitted that it is settled law that the Consumer Forum can not question the award which has no power to set aside the award or decree passed by the Civil Court. At the time of argument Mr. Sampad Choudhury agreed that it is settled law that if there is an arbitrial award it can not be challenged before Consumer Commission. 

In view of the settled position of law we are in the opinion that the instant complaint is not maintainable in law and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly all the points are decided in the negative. No costs. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of cost.  

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.