West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/12/2017

Buddhadeb Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Chola Invest and Finance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                                                         

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.12/2017

 

Buddhadeb Dey, S/o-Ashok Dey, Vill-Kayata  

P.O.-Madan Mohan Chak, P.S.-Kharagpur(L),

Dist-Paschim Medinipur.….………Complainant

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Chola Invest and Finance Co. Ltd., Kharagpur Branch,

O.T. Road, Inda, P.S.-Kharagpur (L), Dist-Paschim Medinipur,

2. The Manager, Chola Invest and Finance Co. Ltd.,  P-15, Indian Exchange Place Ext., Kolkata-700073 ……………….Ops.

 

For the Complainant:  Mr. Tapas Adhya, Advocate.

For the O.P.             :  Mr. Somnath Guin, Advocate.                     

                                                                    Decided on: -07/08/2017                             

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – This instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant Buddhadeb Dey, S/o-Ashok Dey,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above mentioned O.Ps.

                             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is a resident at

               Kaya, P.O.-Madan Mohan Chak, P.S.-Kharagpur (L), Dist-Paschim Medinipur.  The complainant purchased a vehicle bearing no.WB-33C-0202 through monthly premium with the financial assistance of the O.P. no.1 at the amount of Rs.9,55,910/-  and  accordingly a loan agreement was executed  by and between the parties as per terms of

Contd………..P/2

                                         

                                                                                     

                                                                             ( 2 )

               which the complainant would repay the said loan by  55 Equated Monthly Installment (EMI)@ Rs.25,574/- each. It is stated by the complainant that he has  paid about Rs.9,00,000/- in that said way but rest of the E.M.Is. were unpaid. It  is further stated by the complainant that  all on a sudden the O.P. no.1 repossessed  the vehicle by their musclemen while the vehicle was on ply at Basantapur Road and  thereafter, the O.P. no.1 kept the said vehicle in the godown at Kharagpur. It is specifically stated by the  complainant that the said  repossession of the said vehicle make the complainant to incur huge financial loss and further the complainant mentioned that the said vehicle was only source of  income since he used to ply the said vehicle for earning his livelihood. Thereafter the complainant requested the O.P. no.1 on several occasion to return back the said vehicle after  taking some easy installment but the O.P. no.1  refused to return the said vehicle as the  same was intimated by the repossessed Vehicle  Inventory list dated 17/08/2016. Being  aggrieved  by the behavior of the O.P. the  complainant  served a legal notice through his lawyer  on 20/12/2016 but the O.P. no.1 remained silent which compelled the complainant to file this instant case. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction to return back the  vehicle, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to pay @12% interest p.a.  and to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

  O.P. no.1 has  contested this case by filing written version, stating,  inter alia, that the complainant entered into an  agreement with the O.P. no.1 on 22/10/2013 vide no.XVFPKG00001060070 where the O.P.no.1  sanctioned the amount of Rs.9,55,910/- to the  complainant which was repayable by 55 equated  monthly installment (EMI) @Rs.25,574/- each  and the 1^st and 55^th  installment would be  payable on 01/12/2013 and on 01/06/2018 respectively but the complainant defaulted in making payment of the installment  as per agreement on  22/10/2013.  Thereafter the O.P. no.1 took possession  of the said vehicle as per terms and conditions of the agreement.  Accordingly the O.P. no.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case.

 Both parties adduced evidence by the way of affidavit.  Complainant also adduced his evidence through examination-in-chief.    

           

                                           Points for determination.

   

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer under the provision of C.P.Act,1986 ?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no.1?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for ?

Contd………..P/3

                                         

                                                                                      

                                                         ( 3 )

                                            Decisions with reasons.

                          All points are taken up together for  comprehensive discussions and decision.

            The complainant availed a loan of Rs.9,55,910/- from the Chola Invest and Finance Co. Ltd. and the said loan was repayable by 55 E.M.Is. @Rs.25,574/- each. At the time of  deposition on dock the complainant stated that his paid driver used to ply the said vehicle which he purchased for commercial purpose. It is,  therefore, admitted that the complainant used to ply the vehicle in question for  commercial purpose, Section 2(i)(d) of  C.P. Act, 1986 runs as Consumer means any person who-

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 service 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.  

Hence, it is evident that the complainant is not a consumer under the O.P. as per the said provision.

 In the result the petition of complaint does not succeed.

Hence, it is,

                           ORDERED

                                           that consumer complaint case being no.12/2017 is hereby dismissed but considering the circumstances without cost.

           Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                           Sd/- S. Sarkar                                                             Sd/- P.K. Singha                                

                               Member                                                                          Member