View 3916 Cases Against Tata Motors
View 3916 Cases Against Tata Motors
View 30724 Cases Against Finance
View 1367 Cases Against Tata Motors Finance
Shasikanta Barik filed a consumer case on 03 Feb 2016 against Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Keonjhar Branch in the Kendujhar Consumer Court. The case no is 58/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Feb 2016.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 58 OF 2014
Shasikanta Barik, aged about 29 years,
S/o- Benudhar Barik, Village- Bala,
P.O- Jajaposhi, Near Bala High School,
P.S- Baria, Dist- Keonjhar …………………………………………….Complainant
Vrs.
Tata Motors Finance Ltd,
Keonjhar Branch, Keshari Complex,
Ground Floor, Keonjhar,
P.O- Keonjhargarh , P.S - Town,
Dist- Keonjhar ……………………………………………Op. Party
Advocate for the complainant - Sri Chinmay Ku. Das
Advocate for the Op. Party -Sri Manoj Kumar Panda, Durga Prasad Mohanty,
Sivaram Dehury & Prasant Ku. Jena
Present- Sri Akshaya Kumar Purohit, President
Smt. B. Giri, Member (W)
Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Date of Hearing - 20.01.2016 Date of Order - 03.02.2016
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sri A.K. Purohit, President - The complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in financial service. The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a LPT 3118 TC vehicle bearing registration No. OR-09-Q-9990 with the financial assistance of the O.P. on dated 26.9.2011. According to the loan agreement the complainant has to repay the loan amount of Rs.26,56,659/- in 48 equal monthly installment @ Rs. 56,550/- per month beginning from 2.11.2011 and ending on 2.9.2015. After repayment of Rs. 17,14,600/- the complainant on dated 16.9.2014 send a notice to the O.P. requesting him to reconsider the monthly installment and allowed the complainant to pay the balance amount on easy installment due to his financial condition. Again on dated 23.9.2014 the complainant requested the O.P. to reduce the installment amount to Rs.30,000/- per month but the O.P. did not listen to the same and without any prior notice to the complainant repossess the vehicle on dated 27.10.2014. The complainant alleges that non consideration of the complainants request and repossession of the vehicle without any notice is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the complainant file this case in this Forum with a prayer to reduce the installment amount to Rs. 30,000/- per month and claims cost and compensation.
2. The O.P. contested the case and submitted that, after observing all formalities the O.P. granted a loan amount of Rs. 18,74,000/- in favor of the complainant for purchasing a TATA LPT 3118 TC vehicle and accordingly a loan cum Hypothecation agreement was executed between the parties on dated 26.9.2011 vide Agreement/Account No. 5000788766. As per the terms and condition of the agreement the complainant has to repay the loan amount in 47 monthly installments @ 56,500/- except the first installment which was Rs. 57,659/-. According to the O.P. the complainant defaulted in making payment of installment amount and has violated the terms and condition of the agreement. The O.P. has disputed the maintainability of the case.
3. Heard both the parties. Before going into the merits of the case the learned advocate for the O.P. raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the case and submitted that, since the matter has already been decided by the sole arbitrator and award has already been passed since 15.10.2014 again reagitating the same matter before this forum is not maintainable. On the other hand the learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, the matter in this Forum is in addition to other Act as provided U/S 3 of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the case is maintainable in this Forum.
4. Perused the material available on record. Perused the Xerox copy of award passed by the sole Arbitrator in ARB. CASE No. LOT 67/AGST1788 of 2014. The sole Arbitrator has passed the award on dated 15.10.2014 and the present case has been filed on dated 3.11.2014, i.e. after the matter has already been decided by the sole arbitrator and award has already been passed. Therefore since the matter has already been decided by the arbitrator before filing of this case there is no scope for application of Sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act in the present case. Hence the case is not maintainable in this Forum.
5. Since the case is not maintainable it is not necessary to discuss on the merit of the case.
Accordingly the case of the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to cost and compensation.
I agree I agree
(Sri S.C. Sahoo) (Smt. B. Giri) (Sri A.K. Purohit)
Member Member (W) President
DCDRF, KEONJHAR DCDRF, KEONJHAR DCDRF, KEONJHAR
Dictated & Corrected by me
(Sri A.K. Purohit)
PRESIDENT, DCDRF KEONJHAR
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.