West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/80/2013

Srimanta Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA Motors Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.80/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 08/01/14                                 

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. K. Dutta. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. K. Maity Advocate.

          

Srimanta Pal, S/o-late Harisadhan Pal, Vill-Lorpur, P.O.-Kankabati, P.S.-Chandrakona, Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. TATA Motors Finance Ltd., 886 & 896 Railway Good Shed, near Kharagpur Bus Stand, P.S.-Kharagpur, Pin-721301,District- Paschim Midnapore,
2. LEXUS Motors Ltd., 20, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700017………………Ops.                                                    

                  

                  Case of the complainant Sri Srimanta Pal, in short, is that under Self-employment scheme, he availed of loan of 12,93,000/- (Twelve lakhs ninety three thousand) only on  agreement with the Op. No.1 Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and took a vehicle bearing its engine No.697TC68BYY105317, chassis no. MAT452027B1BO6103 without any Sale Letter from Op No.2 Lexus Motors.  After construction of body on the chassis, the complainant repeatedly requested to Op No.2 for issuing Sale Letter so that the complainant could receive Registration of the said vehicle for the purpose of its bona fide use.  Lastly after expiry of twelve months Op. No.2 issued Sale Letter on 19/12/12.  As a result, the vehicle remained stranded unused during the period of delay till securing registration of the vehicle on 3^rd January, 2013.  Further, the case of the complainant is that he, in terms of the agreement paid 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only on 25/3/12, 38,940/- (thirty eight thousand nine hundred forty) only on 29/3/12, 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only on 30/5/12, 23,500/- (Twenty three thousand five hundred) only on 03/7/12, 1,350/- (one thousand three hundred fifty) only on 30/9/12 and 1,000/- (One thousand) only on 13/8/12.  Thereafter, the complainant informed to the Op. No.1 Tata Motors Finance Ltd. that the vehicle has been registered with the transport authority and assured for payment of rest

Contd…………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

installments.  It is alleged that Op. No.1without due notice took the possession of his vehicle in their custody from Bishnupur Road. 

           

              In this connection, the complainant had presented a civil suit and thereafter he has withdrawn the same.  The complainant had made an expenditure of 7,80,000/- (Seven lakhs eighty thousand) only and thereby he has become pennyless.  Stating the case the complainant prays for getting the possession of his vehicle and till that the Ops.  may not sell out the same.

    

             The complainant in connection with his case has submitted an application for injunction seeking specific relief in terms of the prayer made therein.

    

               In this connection, the complainant has submitted relevant documents namely statement of repayment loan snapshop of dated 9/2/12, sale certificate dated 19/12/12 certificate of registration, temporary permit no.1852/12/13 vehicle payment receipt dated 25/3/12, 29/3/12, 30/5/12, 29/6/12, 13/8/12, 30/9/12; inventory list dated 18/5/13 and application of the complainant dated 23/5/13 and 10/6/13.

    

                Op. No.1 Tata Motors Fiance Ltd. contested the case by filing written statement claiming that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions applicable for the loan stipulated under the agreement.  The allegations made by the complainant are denied and the same is not maintainable in law and in facts and also for want of cause of action.  In this connection, the Op. has challenged that the Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present case which is civil in nature.  That apart, the complaint is Barred by Arbitration and   Conciliation Act 1996 and has already disposed of by arbitration proceeding. Accordingly an award has been passed.  So the Op. is not a subject of deficiency of service nor is liable for unfair trade practice. 

       

              In order to support the case, a bunch of documents in Xerox copies are submitted by the Op-1.

      

              For the purpose of correct decision of this case, the following issues are framed for discussion.   

Issues :

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this case?
3. Whether the case has already been disposed of by due process of law?
4. If the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

                            Contd…………..P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -              

 

Decision with reasons

Issue No.1 to 4 :

                All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are closely related to each other exposing the dispute in the case.  Ld. Advocate for the complainant stated the case in details and claimed that without due notice to the complainant the Op. took away vehicle of the complainant and issued an inventory report which is highly irregular and without basis of payment- schedule made by the complainant in terms of the loan agreement. Now, the complainant apprehends that the Ops. may at any time sell out the vehicle defying the lawfull right of the complainant.  Ld. Advocate further argued that it is the fault on the part of the Ops. not to issue sale letter in time enabling the complainant to have registration number against the vehicle for the purpose of its valid use.

 

               So, for the deficiency of service of the Ops, the complainant sustained huge amount of monetory loss.  In this matter, the Ops. should be held guilty of deficiency of service and necessary order including direction for giving delivery of the vehicle may be passed in favour of the complainant.

    

               Ld. Advocate appearing for the Op. in reply is found to have submitted that the case is totally out of jurisdiction of this Forum mainly on the ground that the subject of dispute has already been ended in accordance with the proceeding drawn under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by granting an award in favour of the Ops. and the said award has been delivered on 31/5/13.  Secondly, the Consumer Protection laws do not attract the present case of the complainant who is not designated to be consumer in accordance definition of the said act.  Thirdly, the case in the form as presented by the complainant is a subject to be adjudicated by a Civil Court.  Thus, the case is not maintainable and thereby the same should be dismissed.

    

              Having considered the submission made by Ld. Advocates in relation to the respective case of the parties together with the entire materials appearing on the documents submitted by both parties admitted vice versa, it appears that this is a case exclusively based on loan agreement executed between the parties wherein the claimant is liable to comply with the terms and condition as stipulated in the agreement.  The complainant agreed to repay the loan amount along with interest thereupon by way of monthly installments as per schedule.  For non-compliance with the terms of the agreement, the complainant shall remain responsible for getting delivery of the vehicle from the Op.  For the purpose of the repayment of the loan advanced the vehicle stands

Contd…………..P/4

 

- ( 4 ) -

hypothecated to the Ops.  Admittedly the payment has been defaulted by the complainant.  So the

Ops, by operation of the condition of the agreement towards the loan, was held at liberty to proceed with the arbitration clause and in due process, the same is found to have been concluded on 31/5/13 by the effect of that Award.

                 

                  Under facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no scope to interfere with the matter.  Further, from the material information appearing the Ld. Agreement dated 31/12/11, the purpose of the vehicle purchased was for commercial gain.  If that be so, we accept the submission of Ld. Advocate for the Ops and held that the complainant should not be considered as a lawful consumer to move before us with such a prayer as made in the petition of complaint.  Thus, it should be decided that there is no case established by the complainant in favour of his prayer.  As a result, the case should be dismissed. All issues are disposed of accordingly.

                           Hence

                                      It is ordered

                                                           that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.  

Dic. & Corrected by me

 

            President                                        Member                                           President

                                                                                                                       District Forum

                                                                                                                    Paschim Medinipur