DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC-  31  of 2017

 

 

Smti. Nivea Baidya(Paul),

W/O_ Shri Nanda Dulal Pal,

Masterpara, Agartala,

West Tripura. .....…...Complainant.

 

 

         VERSUS

 

 

      1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

87, H.G. Basak Road (1st Floor),

Opp. Madan Mohan Mandir,

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

 

      2. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

House No.16, N.S. Avenue,

Hailakandi Road, P.O. & P.S. Silchar,

Assam- 788005.

 

      3. Niladri Motors,

Chandrapur Math,

Kashipur, A. A.Road,

Agartala, P.O. Khayerpur,

P.S. East Agartala,

Tripura(West)- 799004. .......... Opposite parties.

 

 

 

                      __________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Tapas Kr. Deb,

 Sri Debabrata De,

 Sri Uttam Paul,

 Advocate.

 

For the Opposite Parties : Sri Sudipta Sekhar Debnath,

 Advocate.

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   12.06.2017

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

This case arises on the petition filed by one Nivea Baidya U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

2. Petitioner's case in short is that she purchased one Tata Indica DLS vehicle and took loan for Rs.3,64,500/- from the Tata Motors Financier, O.P. No.1. The amount is to be paid by installments. 1st and 2nd installment @ Rs.7,300/-. Total Rs.14,600/- was paid. 3rd installment Rs.8,230/- was paid. Thereafter EMI @ Rs.8135/- was paid through 11 nos. of post dated cheque issued in favour of the O.P. No.1, Tata Motors Finance. O.P. No.1 collected all installments through the post dated bank cheques EMI. Full and final payment was made on 01.10.14 but O.P. No.1 refused to issue 'No objection' certificate. He claimed that all installments not paid but actually all installments was paid. As no Objection Certificate was not issued so petitioner could not run the vehicle for the want of valid papers from the registration authority. Registration authority did not issue the road permit as the 'No Objection' certificate was not issued. As a result petitioner suffered huge loss for the deficiency of service of the O.P. No.1 and 2. Therefore petitioner claimed compensation amounting to Rs.7,52,000/-. 

 

3. Notice sent to O.P. No.1, 2 & 3 but they did not appear. At the last stage of the case O.P. No.3 appeared and  filed W.O. stating that they are not the necessary party in this case and there was no deficiency of service by them as alleged by the petitioner.  

 

4. We have gone through the complaint petition and found that Niladri motors is not necessary party at all. They are not related in connection of the sanction of the loan or payment of loan. Necessary parties are Tata Motors Finance Ltd. who did not appear to contest the case. So case is to be decided exparte. 

 

5. Petitioner produced the loan agreement, advocate notice, reply, Notice of the Tata Motors, No Objection Certificate of Tata Motors, Permit copies, bank account statement, demand draft. 

6. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of Nivea Baidya Pal. O.P. No.3 cross examined her. 

 

7. On the basis of the all these evidence we shall now determine the merit of the case.

 

 

Findings and decision:

 

8. We have gone through the contract details. Invoice amount was Rs.3,88,859/-. The amount is to be paid in 45 installments. Two numbers of installments in advance was paid. Disbursal date is 31.03.14. Maturity date is 02.10.14. 

 

9. We have gone through the bank statement. It is found that on 02.07.11 Rs.8,135/- installment was paid in favour of Tata Motors. Every month this amount was paid. There was missing amount in the month of May, 2011. In that month Rs.8,135/- was not paid though post dated cheques was handed over to O.P. But on 24.02.12 amount of Rs.8,230/- was paid. On 02.02.12 again Rs.8,135/- was paid. Demand notice was given by Nivea Baidya Pal on 10.03.15. In response to that Tata Motors Finance Ltd. informed that 4th installment Rs.8135/- was due on 02.05.11 and it was not paid till 22.02.12. That may be true as it was paid on 24.02.12. It is also stated that due to rise of insurance premium Rs.6235/- was debited through account on 18.01.13 towards insurance policy premium. Again for the year 2014-15 Rs.4810/- was debited. In case of late payment over due charges required to be  paid and total Rs.26,585/- was due. From the letter it is found that Tata Finance Ltd. claimed Rs.26,585.90/-. How the amount is calculated is not clear. What amount was paid as premium of insurance policy not clarified. Tata Motors did not appear before this Forum to justify that they had any valid reasons for not issuing the 'No objection' Certificate. The matter of hike of insurance premium was not informed to petitioner & failure to collect the installment in May, 2011 lies on Tata Finance as it had scope to collect EMI.

 

10. We have gone through the 'No Objection' certificate issued by the Tata Motors Finance earlier time to time. On 04.05.12 Tata Motors Finance Collection Department informed Registering Authority of the vehicle that the party paid all dues for the said vehicle. No dues on date. It is clearly stated that on 04.05.12 all dues paid but in the letter it is stated that dues not cleared up to 22.02.12. Matter of hike of insurance premium also not mentioned while issuing the 'No Objection' Certificate. 'No Objection' Certificate was issued by Tata Motors informing the DTO on 11.08.14. Such NOC was reissued by Collection Department, Arunabhoy Ghosh. On 25.2.13, 24.01.14, 17.10.12 time to time 'No Objection' certificate by Collection Department authorized by Finance company was issued. From all these it is found that 'No Objection' certificate is required for running the commercial vehicle. It is required for the running of vehicle. Road permit only renewed by the 'No objection' certificate issued by the financier. 

 

11. From the evidence it is found that the vehicle of the petitioner was converted to commercial vehicle and for this commercial vehicle Road Permit is required. But D.T.O. did not issue the Road Permit for the want of 'No objection' certificate from financier. Tata Motors Finance did not assign any cogent evidence to support that any loan installment was due to be paid. From the evidence on record it is established that petitioner, Nivea Baidya Pal paid all the installments as per agreement. Inspite of that final 'No Objection' Certificate was not issued. As a result petitioner suffered huge loss. She could not ply the vehicle and due to that she had to pay huge amount for driver and other expenditure for such deficiency of service by Tata Motors Finance.  

 

12. We therefore, direct the O.P. No.1, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and O.P. No. 2,  Tata Motors Finance Ltd. to issue the NOC in favour of the petitioner. We also direct Tata Motors Finance Ltd. to pay compensation amounting to Rs.35,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) to the petitioner for the loss sustained by the petitioner. The amount is to be paid within one month, if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.     

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.