BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 719 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 26.11.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 06.07.2011 |
Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Brahm Datt Sharma Resident of House No. 295, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. …..Complainant(s)…. V E R S U S 1] Tata Motors Finance Ltd., DGP House 4th Floor, Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai-400025 2] Tata Motors Finance Ltd., SCO 1124-1125, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager. ……Opposite Parties 3. Vinay Kumar C/o Brij Mohan, R/o House No. 403, FF, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh. ……Performa Opposite Party CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for com Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 OP-3 exparte. PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased a accidental vehicle make Indica DLS bearing registration No.CH-04C-0901 on 26.5.2010 from OP No.3 after paying Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- towards repair and cost of the vehicle respectively. The complainant averred that the vehicle was hypothecated with OP No.1 & 2, so he approached the OP No.2 for full and final settlement but he was told to pay installment of the loan for sometime and assured that after making all the calculations, he would be provided details of full and final settlement. The complainant paid two installment in the month of July, 2010 and August 2010 (Annexure C-3 & C-4) but to his utter surprise, the OPs moved an application before the Court at Delhi and got order of recovery of the vehicle against Sh.Vinay Kumar(OP-3). The complainant further alleged that since the OPs Nos.1 and 2 received the payment of two installments from him, and thereafter, got the repossession order from the court at Delhi without disclosing the same to him, the same amounts to unfair trade practice, hence this complaint. 2. OP No. 1 &2 filed their joint reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case. The OP No.1 &2 took the preliminary objection that the complainant has no connection with OP No.1&2 and they never rendered any service to him. The OP No.1 &2 further contended that the complainant purchased the vehicle at his own risk as he was well aware of the fact that the vehicle was under their hypothecation and the OP No.3 had no right to sell the vehicle without their prior permission and also without obtaining No Objection Certificate from them. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. OP-3 refused to accept the summons, hence proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.03.2011. 4. The Parties led evidence in support their contentions. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsel parties and have also perused the record. . 6. The complainant has pleaded that he purchased the vehicle bearing registration No.CH-04C-0901 on 26.5.2010 from OP No.3. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle was hypothecated with OP No.1 & 2 and as such he approached the OP No.2 for full and final settlement but he was told to pay installment of the loan for sometime. It is further the case of the complainant that he paid two installments for the month of July, 2010 and August 2010 qua Annexure C-3 & C-4. It is the grouse of the complainant that OPs No.1 and 2 moved an application before the Court at Delhi and got order of recovery of the vehicle against Sh. Vinay Kumar(OP-3). It is the allegation of the complainant that he made payment of two installments to OPs No.1 and 2, therefore, the re-possession order obtained from the Court at Delhi amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. 7. OP Nos.1 & 2 have raised the plea that the complainant has no concern with OP No.1 & 2 as they never rendered any service to him. The vehicle was under hypothecation with OPs No.1 and 2 so OP-3 has no right to sell the same without their prior permission or without getting the No Objection Certificate from them. 8. The admitted facts may be noticed thus:- i) That the vehicle bearing registration No.CH-04C-0901 was hypothecated with OPs No.1 and 2. ii) That OP-2 got the re-possession order of the vehicle in question from the Court at Delhi. iii) Admittedly, the complainant made the payment of Rs.6000/- in the month of July, 2010 and Rs.6000/- were paid by Smt.Bimla Sharma in August, 2010 qua Annexures C-3 and C-4 respectively to OPs No.1 and 2. 9. The complainant has placed on record the copy of the agreement to sell (Annexure C-2) to prove the sale of the vehicle in question in his favour by OP-3. Apart from the said document, the complainant has failed to place on record any receipt to prove the payment of Rs.90,000/- so made by him to OP-3 towards sale consideration of the vehicle. So much so, neither there is any affidavit of Sh.Vinay Kumar-OP No.3 or the complainant to prove the sale and purchase of the said vehicle. The complainant has also not placed on record any evidence to prove the transfer of the said vehicle in his favour. 10. The matter does not rest here. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was under hypothecation with OPs No.1 & 2, so, OP-3 has no legal right to sell the vehicle in question to the complainant without getting No Objection Certificate from OPs No.1 and 2. On this count also, the agreement to sell referred to above is not sufficient to prove the sale of the said vehicle by OP-3 to the complainant. 11. The complainant has paid the amount of Rs.6000/- to OPs No.1 and 2 on 15.07.2010 vide AnnexureC-3 towards the loan agreement No.5000270318 of OP-3. Similarly, the payment of Rs.6000/- has also been made by one Ms.Bimla Sharma on 20.08.2010 vide AnnexureC-4 towards the said loan agreement No.5000270318. 12. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that since the complainant had made the payment of Rs.6000/- on 15.07.2010 and his wife Smt.Bimla Sharma has also made the payment of Rs.6000/-on 20.08.2010 in the loan account of OP-3 to OPs NO.1 and 2, therefore, he falls under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(i)(d) of the Act. 13. Now it is to be seen whether the complainant falls within the definition of consumer as envisaged under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Section 2(i)(d) of the Act is reproduced for the purpose of convenience:- “(d) "consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;” 14. From the definition of ‘consumer’ referred to above, a person who buys any goods for consideration or hires or avails the services for consideration is a consumer. In our considered view, mere deposit of Rs.6000/- each vide Annexures C-3 and C-4 referred to above in the loan account of OP-3 with the OPs No.1 and 2 is not sufficient to prove that the complainant is a consumer as envisaged u/s 2(i) (d) of the Act as the amount of Rs.6000/- each qua Annexures C-3 and C-4 had been deposited by the complainant and one Smt.Bimla Sharma in the loan account of OP-3. Thus, it can legitimately be concluded that he is not a consumer as envisaged under section 2(i)(d) of the Act as he has not availed or hired the services for consideration and amount of Rs.12000/- referred to above¸ have been deposited with OPs No.1 and 2 on behalf of OP-3. 15. As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove himself to be the consumer of the OPs and also failed to prove any deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. 16. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | Sd/- | Sd/- | 6.7.2011 | [Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | [P.D. Goel] | | Member | Member | President | Cm | | | |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
