Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.12.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party no. 4 to pay the price of accessories i.e. Screw driver, Seat Belt, Parda and Touchan Hook.
- To direct the opposite party no. 1 to 3 to pay to refund the amount of Rs. 71,880/- ( Rs. Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty only ) collected as insurance premium from the complaint along with 18% interest.
- To direct the opposite party no. 1 to 3 to reduce the installment from Rs. 11,800/- ( Rs. Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred only ) to 9,800/- ( Rs. Nine Thousand Eight Hundred only ) and to mention the amount of Rs. 90,062/- ( Rs. Ninety Thousand Sixty Two only ) as initial amount/hire in the contract details.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lack only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,000/- ( Rs. One Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that the finance company i.e. opposite party no. 1 to 3 entered into an agreement with the complainant for the purpose of enabling him to purchase a vehicle but the copy of the agreement was not given to him despite his request. Thereafter the complainant has purchased a Tata Motor Magic vehicle after obtaining loan from the said finance company for the purpose of his livelihood. The aforesaid vehicle was registered as BR – 04M – 5586. Initially the complainant paid the insurance amount from his own pocket but even then the opposite party no. 1 is collecting premium amount as will appear from vide annexure – 3 and 4.
The grievance of the complainant is that complainant has paid the amount of Rs. 90,062/- despite of the fact in the contract details the amount is mentioned as Rs. 72,248/-. The complainant thereafter lodged complaint that when he is paying amount of Rs. 90,062/- then why the amount of Rs. 72,248/- has been paid. Thereafter a chart was provided to the complainant in which it is stated that the EMI amount is Rs. 9,800/- and the complainant is compelled by opposite party no. 1 to pay amount of Rs. 11,800/-.
It has been also asserted that opposite party no. 4 has not provided the Screw Driver, Seat Belt, Touchan Hook etc. for which he approached opposite party no. 4 several times but did not redressed the grievance of the complainant. It has been further asserted that on 24.03.2004 while he was driving the vehicle all of a sudden the agent with three muscleman stopped the vehicle and forcibly took possession of the vehicle. The complainant thereafter approached opposite party no. 3 with latest installment receipt and requested to release the vehicle but he refused to do so.
On behalf of opposite parties an application has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. In Para 2 of aforesaid application opposite party no. 1 to 3 have asserted that the complainant had approached the opposite parties seeking financial assistance of Rs. 2,88,000/- contractual value of Rs. 4,13,938/- for purchase of a vehicle which was subsequently provided by the opposite party vide contract no. 5001236914 dated 30.04.2009. the said financial assistance was paid in 35 equal installments wherein the first installment was of Rs. 12,738/- and the rest 2nd to 35th installment was Rs. 11,800/-.
It has been further asserted that the opposite parties would like to bring into the notice of the Hon’ble Forum that the company has not repossessed the vehicle on 24.03.2014 with the help of three muscleman. In Para 4 of the aforesaid application the opposite party no. 1 to 3 have asserted as follows, “that to the surprise of the answering opposite parties the complainant has filed a supplementary affidavit wherein he has stated that on 11.10.2014, the concerned vehicle Tata Magic of the complainant has been stolen by the anti social persons after breaking of the lock. That the complainant is making self contradictory statement wherein in the complaint petition has stated that the vehicle has been forcibly repossessed on 24.03.2014 by the answering opposite parties and then in the supplementary affidavit the complainant has stated that the vehicle has been stolen on 11.10.2014.” In this application opposite party no. 1 to 3 has asserted that entire story of repossession and other facts of the complainant is concocted story and as such the complainant be called in this Forum to answer the conduct.
On behalf of the complainant a supplementary affidavit has been filed on 10.04.2015 stating therein that on 11.10.2014 the vehicle of the complainant has been stolen by the anti social persons after breaking lock of the vehicle and thereafter the complainant submitted an application vide annexure – 1 of the supplementary affidavit directing the concerned officer to make enquiry in the matter.
On behalf of complainant again a supplementary affidavit has been filed in reply to the fact asserted by opposite party no. 1 to 3 in their application referred above. In this application it has been asserted that on 24.03.2014 the complainant’s vehicle was forcibly repossessed by muscleman which was received by the opposite parties after receiving the charge from the complainant on 12.04.2014 and on 11.10.2014 stands stolen.
On behalf of opposite party no. 4 a written statement has been filed. In Para – 8 of which it has been asserted that “the accessories supplied by Tata Motors along with vehicle have been delivered to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle and after receiving of the same he issued a satisfaction letter”. It is further asserted that no such complaint have been made by the complainant in his legal notice dated 01.08.2013.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The brief facts asserted by respective parties have been narrated in forgoing paragraphs.
It is the case of the complainant that while the EMI is fixed as Rs. 9,800/- but the complainant is compelled by opposite party no. 1 to pay Rs. 11,800/-. In Para – 2 of the application of opposite party no. 1 to 3 it has been asserted that “ the financial assistance was to be repaid in 35 equal installment was of Rs. 12,738/- and the 2nd to 35th installment was Rs. 11,800/-. This fact has not been denied by complainant by filing cogent material and rejoinder because the payment of Rs. 11,800/- by the complainant is reflected in detail of repayment annexed by opposite party no. 1 to 3 with their application. The fact that the muscleman of the opposite party no. 1 to 3 had repossessed the vehicle by force on 24.03.2014 have been denied by the opposite party no. 1 to 3 but again asserted by complainant through his supplementary affidavit. There is no any cogent evidence to prove the allegation and counter allegation of the parties and as such we are unable to decide this disputed fact.
On behalf of the complainant, in his first supplementary affidavit it has been asserted that the vehicle was repossessed on 24.03.2014 was released by opposite parties after receiving the charge from the complainant on 12.04.2014 and on 11.10.2014 the vehicle was stolen again which an application has been filed before S.P. Saran for direction to make investigation in this matter.
It is surprising that no copy of FIR and result of investigation has been submitted by the complainant to show the real truth of the matter and this fact also completely change the complexion of the whole case because if it is true, the complainant will have to approach Insurance Company for further relief.
No any finding can be recorded either way on the aforementioned disputed fact and change of circumstances. Thus this complaint petition stands dismissed.
Member President
