The case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant, a driver, in order to earn his livelihood purchased a Tata ACE-HT chasis fitted with cab and load body, on Dt.18/05/2008 with a loan amount of Rs. 2,73,883/-(Rupees two lac seventy three thousand eight hundred eighty three)only from the Opposite Party No.3(three) financed by Opposite Party No.2(two) with 7.8% interest per annum to be paid in 45(forty five) monthly installment. The Complainant paid the down payment of Rs.61,000/-(Rupees sixty one thousand)only through Banker cheque which was encahsed by one Kabi Surya Sahu, an employee of Opposite Party No.3(three), besides the insurance premium amount of Rs.12,100/-(Rupees twelve thousand one hundred)only. The vehicle had a warranty period of one year from the date of purchase.<br /> <br /> The Complainant could know that the Opposite Party No.3(three) had not intimated him about an exemption scheme of Rs. 7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only announced by the Opposite Party No.1(one) which the Complainant was entitled to receive. Being inquired about the same the Opposite Party No.3(three) orally agreed to reimburse the amount but avoided paying the same which the Complainant apprehended to be an unfair Trade Practice by Opposite Party No.3(three) and so he demanded a detailed statement of account of the bill from Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three). The Statement of accounts received from Opposite Party No.2(two) shows that an amount of Rs. 56,843/-(Rupees fifty six thousand eight hundred forty three)only have been received instead of Rs. 61,000/-(Rupees sixty one thousand)only paid to Opposite Party No.3(three) and the interest rate was 8.5% per annum instead of 7.8% over the loan amount as represented by Opposite Party No.3(three). Such conduct of Opposite Party No.3(three) amounted to deficiency in service to the Complainant. The Complainant found a crack in the body of the vehicle and the same being within the warranty period he approached the Opposite Party No.3(three) to repair it which he refused. The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) remain silent even after oral complaint by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that due to such conduct of the Opposite Parties he suffered a loss of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for the excess interest he is liable to pay than the agreed rate, Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards mental agony, an exemption of Rs. 7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only payable to the Complainant and Rs. 4,127/-(Rupees four thousand one hundred twenty seven)only the differential amount paid as down payment, totaling Rs.31,127/-(Rupees thirty one thousand one hundred twenty seven)only, which the Opposite Parties are jointly liable to pay to the Complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> The Complainant prays (a) to calculate rate of interest at 7.8% on the finance amount of Rs.. 2,19,000/-(Rupees two lac nineteen thousand)only instead of 8.5%. (b) an award of Rs. 31,127/-(Rupees thirty one thousand one hundred twenty seven)only to be paid to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties. ( c) the Opposite Parties to be directed to repair or replace the body of the vehicle within a specific time under the old term and condition (d) the cost of the case.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) in their version make a blanket denial of all the allegations leveled against them by the Complainant and question the maintainability of the Complaint on the ground (a) the vehicle being for commercial purpose (b) it need be tried by competent Civil Court (c ) it is to be referred to a Sole Arbitrator to be nominated by Opposite Party No.2(two), the venue of Arbitration being Mumbai (d) this Fourm having no territorial jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties contend that they are not Principal for Opposite Party No.3(three) who is a separate entity and acts on its own. The finance amount of the vehicle was Rs. 2,19,000/-(Rupees two lac nineteen thousand)only interest was Rs. 74,460/-(Rupees seventy four thousand four hundred sixty)only and the insurance provision Rs. 27,000/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand)only aggregating to Rs.3,20,460/-(Rupees three lac twenty thousand four hundred sixty)only, payable in 46(forty six) months at the rte of Rs. 6,950/-(Rupees six thousand nine hundred fifty)only per month, the first installment being Rs, 7,710/-(Rupees seven thousand seven hundred ten)only starting from Dt. 21/06/2008 to Dt.21/03/2012. The amount of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only has been duly adjusted in the account of the Complainant as shown in the statement of account. The Opposite Parties also say that the vehicle was never reported for any crack in the chassis. The Opposite Parties pray for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties No.3(three) question the maintainability of the case due to lack of cause of action. The Opposite Party No.3(three), authorized dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. arranged the finance of the vehicle from the Opposite Party No.2(two), the Complainant having agreed to the term and conditions of the finance scheme. The Opposite Party No.3(three) admit the initial payment of Rs. 61,000/-(Rupees sixty one thousand)only by the Complainant for processing works to purchase the vehicle. The Opposite Party No.3(three) answerable for Rs.68,000/-(Rupees sixty eight thousand)only i.e. Rs. 61,000/-(Rupees sixty one thousand)only (paid by the Complainant) + Rs. 7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only (discount amount). The Opposite Party No.3(three) spent Rs. 69,149/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand one hundred forty nine)only in lieu of Rs. 68,000/-(Rupees sixtyeight thousand)only on behalf of the Complainant and the Complainant is to pay Rs. 1,149/-(Rupees one thousand one hundred forty nine)only to the Opposite Party No.3(three). The Opposite Party No.3(three) alleges that Opposite Party No.3(three) asked the Complainant, to pay the said balance amount of Rs. 1,149/-(Rupees one thousand one hundred forty nine)only, the Complainant filed this case to harass him. The Complainant never complained about the defect of the vehicle before the Opposite Party No.3(three) at any point of time.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) denies all allegation made against it by the Complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint petition, Opposite Parties's version as well as the copy of documents filed in their respective case and found as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant himself being a driver and having purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood is a consumer within the scope and provision of Consumer Protection Act. The present deal having been transacted within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum and one of the Opposite Parties having its office and all the Opposite Parties carrying business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum, the Complaint is triable by the Forum. Though there is provision for Arbitration in the Agreement the Complainant has the option to take shelter under the local Consumer Law Agency to redress his grievance. Hence the present complaint is maintainable in the present form and in this Forum.<br /> <br /> The Complainant contend that it was agreed by the Opposite Party No.3(three) in consultation with Opposite Party No.2(two) that 7.8% interest would be paid by the complainant an the finance amount. The Complainant has not supported his contentions with any documentary or other evidence, while the contract details filed by the complainant himself shows the interest rate to be 8.50% per annum. As regards the allegation of the Complainant that Rs. 56,843/-(Rupees fifty six thousand eight hundred forty three)only has been received by the Opposite Party No.2(two) instead of Rs. 61,000/-(Rupees sixty one thousand)only paid to Opposite Party No.3(three) by the Complainant. The statement of account furnished by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) shows that they have received Rs. 61,000/-(Rupees sixty one thousand)only from the Complainant and Rs. 7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only has been added towards discount made to the Complainant and as such the amount paid by the Complainant has been shown as Rs. 68,000/-(Rupees sixty eight thousand)only.<br /> <br /> So far as the alleged crack in the body of the vehicle and non-compliance of the Opposite Parties to repair/replace the same, though it was within warranty period, has not been proved by the Complainant in any manner to refute the denial plea taken by the Opposite Parties in the matter. The copy of service history filed by Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) does not reveal any crack in the body of the vehicle. The Complainant has not proved the same by adducing any evidence in its support.<br /> <br /> In view of the above discussion and thorough examination of the fact and circumstance of the complaint and the copies of documents filed by the Parties it is concluded that the Complainant has not been able to establish his case of alleged deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Parties towards the him.<br /> <br /> Complaint disallowed.<br /> No cost.<br />