DATE OF DISPOSAL: 18.07.2019
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant G.Dilesu Patra has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he had got a loan from the O.P. for purchase a motor vehicle Tata Magic through a vehicle loan availed by TATA Motors Finance Solutions Limited in the year 2013 vide contract No.5001173527 dated 21.02.2013 for his business purpose and made an insurance vide his policy No. 55270031136300169417 towards insurance of his vehicle and paid a premium of Rs.14,000/-for the period of 2014-15 which has been directly deducted from CC Account of the complainant as monthly basis for an amount of Rs.893.62 additional other charges (all total Rs.14,000/-per annum) along with the loan amount and due to increase of premium amount in next year and as per instruction the complainant had deposited an additional amount of Rs.3,848/- out of policy premium of Rs.17,848/-for the next year i.e. for the period of 16.02.2014 to midnight on 15.02.2015 and issued a receipt on 16.01.2014. As per the terms and conditions laid down by Tata Finance Authorities the complainant has regularly paid his all dues as per contract with Tata Motor Finance Solutions Limited and he had paid the insurance premium up to two years i.e. from 2013 to 2015 and the insurance has been continued with National Insurance Company Limited for the period of two years. But in the year 2015 the complainant has changed his Insurance Company and insured his vehicle with IFFICO TOKIO and deposited his insurance policy amount for two years and updated his policy up to February 2017. The complainant has not irregular his policy and continued his policy with IFFICO TOKIO till today i.e. for 2015-16 deposited the premium amount Rs.15998.78 dated 09.02.2015 (from 16.02.2015 to midnight on 15.02.2016) and for 2016-17 deposited the premium amount Rs.17,644.27 dated 15.02.2016 (from 16.02.2016 to midnight on 15.02.2017). So question does not arise of irregular and payment of over dues. The complainant has given a notice to TATA Motors Finance Solutions Limited that as he has regularly deposited his insurance premium without any obstacles, even he has deposited the increased rate of premium. But non-cooperation of the National Insurance Company he has changed his vehicle’s insurance from National Insurance Company to IFFICO TOKIO. But as per their earlier contract at the time of finance of his vehicle, TATA Motors, the O.P. collected additional amount of Rs.28,000/- (Rs.14,000/- per year for 2015-16 and 2016-2017) which are to be refunded to the complainant though the Finance Company has received excess money towards insurance. Actually he has already insured the vehicle in IFFICO TOKIO Insurance Company and at the same time the complainant’s finance loan towards his vehicle is over in this year 2017. The complainant required his NOC (No objection certificate) as well as he wants to return back his excess amount of money Rs.28,000/- received by the O.P. Moreover, the complainant has given oral submission and also written representation that for early settlement of his claim and issuing NOC in favour of the complainant. After several times interaction with the TATA Motors Authorities and Mr. Mohanty, one of the Marketing Senior personality of the Company, Tata Motors over phone that, the complainant did not find any settlement situation between each other. Since last 2 months in the month of February 2017, the complainant has closed his all finance dues. The complainant issued legal notice to settle the dispute but in vain. The complainant filed a case before the Hon’ble Permanent Lok Adalat. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. TATA Motors Finance Solutions Limited to issue NOC in favour of the complainant and return of Rs.28,000/- towards excess money received by the Insurance Company through TATA Motors along with 12% interest per annum from the date of claim till payment and Rs.20,000/- towards mental tension in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but the O.P.No.3 neither choose to appear nor filed any written version. Hence the O.P.No.3 set exparte on dated 20.03.2018.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.1 & 2 filed version through his advocate. It is stated the averments made in Para 1 of the complaint are matters of record and don’t require any specific reply on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant has produced the documentary evidence to prove his case. In Para 2 of the complaint are denied by the O.P. for want of proof and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The complainant has not adduced any evidence. Hence in the absence of evidence, the complainant in the instant case cannot be held to be consumer within the meaning of the Consumer protection Act, 1986. In Para 3 of the complaint are denied by the O.P. as false except those facts that are matters of record and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Although the complainant was liable to pay Rs.11990/- per month towards the installments initially up to the 47th installment, he has remained a defaulter and the complainant has not made the payments regularly as is averred by him in the complaint. It is evident from the bank statement annexed by the complaint that the payments were not made on the stipulated due dates and has been irregular in payments. All the averments made at Para 4 and 5 of the complaint are denied by the O.P. as false except those facts that are matters of record and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Although the complainant was liable to pay Rs.11990/- per month towards the installments initially up to the 47th installment, he has remained a defaulter. It is evident from the bank statement annexed by the complainant that the payments were not made on the stipulated due dates and has been irregular in payments. The Opposite Party financier submits that as per the receipt information maintained by this O.P. the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.5,43,597/- as on 19.06.2017. It may be clarified that as a general banking and business practice the payments accepted by this O.P. are only towards particular contract number (loan account number) hence this O.P. strenuously denies that the company has excess taken payment of Rs.28,000/- from the complainant, hence the complainant is liable to make the payments of outstanding amount along with future installments. The complainant has neither adduced any evidence to prove the forcible repossession nor has filed any criminal complaint against forcible repossession. It is submitted that the burden of proof lies upon the complainant to prove the allegation of collecting excess amount and in the absence of any such evidence the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is denied that any unfair trade practice has been followed by this O.P. and the complainant be put to strict proof of the same. It is further denied that this O.P. has threatened the complainant and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Hence it is evident that the complainant has malafidely evaded paying the installments and has filed this vexatious complaint which is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the date of hearing advocate for the complainant as well as advocate for O.P.No.1 & 2 are present. We heard arguments from both sides at length and gone through the case record and also perused the written version, written argument and materials available in the case record. It reveals from Para ‘1’ of complaint petition that the complainant has purchased the motor vehicle for business purpose. Further, it also reveals from the evidence on affidavit which is filed by the complainant that he had purchased the vehicle by the financer of TATA Motor Finance Solution Ltd. In the year 2013 vide contact No.5001173527/contact dated 21.02.2013 for business purpose.
6. Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act – “Consumer” means
(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.
(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 purpose].
7. Law is also well settled in case of Millan Barot & Ors versus Mukesh Haridat Bhatta & Anr reported in 2011(2) CPR 12 wherein Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi has held that “Business dispute is to be adjudicated in a Civil Court and not in a Consumer Court”.
8. On foregoing discussion, it is clearly established that this complaint is not maintainable as per consumer Protection Act. Hence the complainant’s complaint is dismissed against O.Ps without cost and the complainant is at liberty to file his case in any Forum having jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance and he may avail the benefit U/S 14 of the Limitation Act in the best interest of justice.
The order is pronounced on this day of 18th July 2019 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
