Mohan Kumar Singh,

son of Vishwa Nath  Singh,

27, Goshal Road, P.S. Bally,

Howrah – 711204. ------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Tata Motors  Finance Limited,

Akruti, SMC 3^rd floor, Khopat Junction,

LBS Marg, Thane West Mumbai,

PIN – 400 602.

2.      Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

registered office at Nanavati,

Mahalaya, 3^rd floor,

18, Homi Mody Street,

Mumbai – 400 001.

3.      The Manager,

Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

at 91, B.T. Road, 1^st floor, Dunlop,

P.S. Baranagar, Kolkata – 700090.

4.      Anand  Sons Auto Service

( Tata Motors authorized servicing centre ),

N.H. – 6, Alampur More, P.S. Sankrail,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711313.------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.p. to accept the admitted final settlement proposal by receiving the balance amount of Rs. 8,60,000/- without any interest and to release the vehicle being no. WB 11B 7146 ( truck ) in good running condition to the complainant or alternatively to refund Rs. 13,50,072/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of full payment and to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lack for causing physical and mental harassment together with a litigation costs  of Rs. 20,000/-.

The complainant purchased the said vehicle being no. WB 11B 7146 truck 

( only the chesis and engine) from the O.P. company for a total consideration of Rs. 18,64,000/- out of which the complainant paid Rs. 3 lacs and the rest amount was to be paid by the O.Ps., repayable by the complainant by monthly EMI of Rs. 51,000/- for a period of 47 months on and from 15-06-2011 to 15-04-2015. After purchasing the said vehicle the complainant got the body of the truck built at a cost of Rs. 4,90,000/- together with tax and miscellaneous expenses.  Thus the complainant initially invested Rs.7,90,000/-  for the same. He used to pay the EMI regularly. As the vehicle did not work properly within the warranty period, the complainant requested the O.Ps. and their authorized service centre for repairment but all his requests went unheeded. After much  persuasion the O.P. company ultimately agreed to release the said vehicle on payment of Rs. 11 lacs by 25-09-2012. As per the agreement the complainant paid Rs. 2,40,000/- by bank draft of HDFC Bank which was received by the O.P. company. Subsequently when the complainant was ready to pay the balance settled amount for release of the vehicle and visited the authorized service centre of the O.P. no. 4 to watch the condition of the said vehicle, to his utter surprise the complainant came to know from the service station that Tata Motors had already taken over the said vehicle from the service station on 22-09-2012 by issuing a letter to the said authorized service station whereby it was written “Tata Motors met with the complainant and agreed and confirmed to release the said vehicle” 

( Annexure P ). The complainant was further shocked to learn that the vehicle was taken over by Tata Motors on 22-09-2012 though they received Rs. 2,40,000/- from the complainant after 3 days i.e., on 25-09-2012.      

2.                  The o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 contested the complaint after filing the written version

contending interalia that they committed no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service ; that the confidential notice dated 25-09-2012 is concocted. So the complaint should be dismissed.

3.                  The O.P. 4 did not file the written version. So the case was heard against him

ex parte.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. The total consideration

of the vehicle was settled to Rs. 18,64,000/.  The complainant paid Rs. 3 lacs and the rest amount was paid by the O.Ps. repayable by the complainant by monthly EMI of Rs. 51,000/- in 47 months, on and from 15-06-2011 till 15-04-2015. Be it mentioned that the complainant had to bear an expenditure of Rs. 4,90,000/- for body building, tax and other miscellaneous expenses, aggregating ( Rs, 4,90,000 plus Rs. 3 lacs ) Rs. 7,90,000/-. The complainant used to pay EMI regularly. Meantime the vehicle  developed mechanical defects within the warrantee period. All his requests to the O.Ps. and their authorized service centre for redressal went abegging and they did not pay any heed. As a result, the complainant had to face tremendous inconvenience in running the said vehicle.

6.                  At the intervention of his well-wisher at the behest of the complainant, the O.P.

company  conceded to release the vehicle on further payment of Rs. 11 lakhs at a time. Accordingly, the O.P. company intimated the complainant to pay the total agreed amount on 25-09-2012. On the appointed date i.e., on 25-09-2012 the complainant paid Rs. 2,40,000/- to the O.P. through bank draft issued by the HDFC Bank and promised to pay the balance amount. On 06-10-2012 when the complainant visited the O.P’s authorized service centre, O.P. no. 4 to inspect his vehicle there, to his utter shock and surprise, he came to learn from the O.P. no. 4 that the O.P. no. 1 had already taken away the said vehicle on 22-09-2012. He was further astonished to see a letter from the O.P. no. 4 that the O.P. no. 1 wrote “that Tata Motors met with the complainant and agreed, confirm to release the said vehicle” -  Annexure – P.

7.                  We are shell-shocked in deciphering the notoriety of the O.P. no. 1 company

who adopted chicanery and played a unique trick to befool the complainant. Once the O.P. no. 1 fixed a date i.e., 25-09-2012 for receiving the sum as per settlement talk and even received a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- from the complainant knowing full well that the vehicle in dispute has already been taken away by them by underhand means on 22-09-2012 i.e., prior to 3 days of the date of receiving  the sum of  Rs. 2,40,000/-. This manoeuvre on the part of the O.P. no. 1 is unparallel and just a master-stroke to dupe the hapless complainant  as his only means of livelihood, i.e., the vehicle has been a disposed of to a 3^rd party in spite of the complainant’s eagerness to retain it by paying part amount towards settlement. This trick of the O.P. no. 1 must not go unpunished.  

8.                  The plea adopted by the O.P. no. 1 that the confidential notice dated 25-09-12

 was not at all issued by the O.P. no. 1 appears to us to be too fragile to merit acceptance. The O.P. no. 1 has miserably failed to produce any adverse evidence to this effect. Therefore, the onus of producing acceptable evidence to refute the plea of the complainant has not been properly discharged by the O.P. On 25^th September, 2012 the O.Ps. 1 to 3 received Rs. 2,40,000/- as part payment of the total agreed amount which was already informed to the O.P. no. 1, the authorized service centre of the O.P. no. 1. Naturally, we have no hesitation in our mind that the O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 adopted hide and seek policy to dupe the complainant which can precisely be called as unfair trade practice.  There is also glaring deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.  

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 145 of 2012 ( HDF 145 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 and dismissed against the O.P. no. 4 without cost.

      The O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 be directed to return the vehicle no. WB 11B 7146 to the complainant in good running condition at once preferably within 15 days from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 8,60,000/- from the complainant without any interest. 

      Alternatively the O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 be also directed to refund the amount of Rs. 13,50,072/- together with 12% interest p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e., 16-10-2012 till actual payment.

      The O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3 be further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for causing mental pain, agony  and prolonged harassment and for depriving the complainant from his only means of livelihood.

      The complainant be also  entitled to a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- from the O.P. nos. 1, 2 & 3. .

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                               (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                   President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                              (  P. K. Chatterjee )

 Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.