West Bengal

StateCommission

CC/362/2014

Priyesh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Avrajit Seal

12 Nov 2014

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
 
Complaint Case No. CC/362/2014
 
1. Priyesh Singh
S/o Shatrughan Singh, 19 & 25/26/1/3, Rose Mary Lane, Howrah, West Bengal -711 101.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
Corporate Office at Building A, 2nd Floor, Lodha I-Think Techno Campus, Off Pokharan Road 2, Thane(West) - 400 607.
2. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
Branch Office at 1st Floor, 91, B.T. Road, Kolkata - 700 090.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Order No. 2    date: 12-11-2014

 

Record is put up for passing orders in respect of admission as well as on the petition filed u/s 13 (3B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

A simple complaint has been lodged before this Commission mainly alleging that the OPs are threatening to repossess the two vehicles illegally from the Complainant without due process of law, and without any Court order, which will cause severe breach of peace/tranquility and law, along with a prayer to supply the Complainant with a copy of the Agreement and/or the   updated Statement of Accounts, of which the Complainant is totally in dark.

 

There is no substance in this case.  It is found that the Complainant paid certain amounts to the OPs on different dates, viz, 12-06-2014, 24-09-2014, etc., and also the Complainant has filed a payment details in respect of the payment made by him and two others, namely, Pooja Roadways Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Birendra Singh.

 

There is nothing on record that the Complainant ever demanded copy of the Agreement and Statement of Accounts from the OPs before filing this case, stating non-receipt of the same.  The threatening part is also not corroborated - either by way of any document or by any police report to that effect. Above all, the Complaint itself shows that the transactions were of commercial nature, which obviously do not attract the beneficiary provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  There is no deficiency of service whatsoever. On the face of it, the sole motive behind moving this purported complaint appears to be to stall the repossession of the vehicles in any way, and nothing more and nothing less.  For apprehension, for breach of peace/tranquility, if any, he should knock the door of a Criminal Court and/or police.  For others, he should go to a Civil Court, if any merit.

 

Accordingly, this case is wholly a misconceived, imaginary and frivolous one.  So, it is not admitted and stands rejected as such.  Consequently, the petition u/s 13 (3B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also stands rejected.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.