DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 128  of  2022

 

Smt. Soma Karmakar,

W/O- Shri Partha Debnath ..............Complainant.

Durjoy Nagar, P.S. Airport,

P.O.- Durjoy Nagar,

Agartala, Tripura(W),

Pin- 799009.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Branch Manager,

    Hero Finance Corporation Ltd.,

    Math Chowmuhani, Jail Ashram Road,

    Shibnagar, P.S. East Agartala,

    Agartala, Tripura(W), 799001.

 

 

2. Shri Rajib Sonar,

 

 

3. M/S Laxmi Motors,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the O.P. No.1. : Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,

 

For the O.P. No.2. : Exparte.

 

For the O.P. No.3 : Sri Jyotishmay Das,

 

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. Soma Karmakar herein after called the “Complainant-Petitioner” being an employee of “Sangeet Gram” purchased one scooty from the Respondent No.3 for her convenience. The price of the scooty was Rs.62,200/- and the complainant took loan from the respondent No.1 on making down payment of Rs.22,000/-. The respondent No.1 calculated 30 installments including interest for the rest amount @Rs.19.10/- till 10.08.2020. 

1.1 It appears that the installment amount could be Rs.1910/- in place of Rs.19.10/-. 

1.2 The scooty was delivered to the complainant on 06.08.2018. The complainant started payment of installments since 08.10.2018 and continued payment till 10.08.2020 through her bank i.e., SBI, Gandhigram Branch. 

1.3 On 27.02.2020 the respondent No.1 and 2 without any prior notice had taken away the scooty from the complainant.

1.4 On 04.02.2021 i.e., after about one year the complainant issued a Legal Notice upon the respondent No.1 but the respondent no.1 and 2 paid no heed. As such on 10.03.2021 the complainant lodged a case with the O/C, Airport P.S. but no action was taken by police.

1.5 The complainant admitted in para- 14 of the complainant that during Covid -19 Pandemic period she failed to pay a few installments. Hence, this complaint for getting back the scooty along with compensation.

2. The O.P. in written objection pleaded that the O.P. no.1 repeatedly requested the complainant to pay the pending installments but to no good and the O.P. no.1 have no knowledge whether her scooty was taken by anybody and O.P. No.2, Rajib Sonar is not a staff of Hero Finance Corporation Ltd. i.e., the O.P.  no.1. The O.P. no.1 believes that the complainant might have sold her scooty and to escape from loan liability has made out a false case against  O.P. no.1. 

3. Vide order dated 19.12.2022 the case has been proceeding exparte against the O.P. No.2 and O.P. no.3, M/S Laxmi Motors from where the scooty was purchased  is not a necessary party stricto senso.

4. The complainant has submitted evidence on affidavit and the O.P. No.1 also submitted evidence on affidavit.

4.1 The complainant adduced some documents including her Bank Account Statement showing payment of installments. 

5. Hearing argument following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-

 

6. All the points are taken up together.

6.1 Learned Counsel of the complainant argued in the line of the complaint and Learned counsel of the O.P. No.1 argued in the line that the O.P. No.2 is not known to O.P. No.1 and the complainant was a habitual defaulter of loan repayment and to escape the loan liability the complainant has manufactured a false case. 

6.2 To prove the fact of theft of scooty etc. illegally taken away of the scooty by the O.P. No.2, the complainant has failed to submit any document i.e., the investigation report of the police. Rather, the complaint of the complainant is that police has not taken any action. Be that, as it may, this Commission is not in a position to investigate such issue of alleged theft or  whether the respondent No.2 had taken away of the scooty of the complainant.

6.3 On perusal of the bank statement of account of the complainant it appears that the complainant has joint account along with one Partha Debnath. From that Bank statement, we find that the complainant paid initial 6 installments regularly @ Rs.1910/-. After that the complainant again paid 5 installments regularly till the month of October, 2019. Thereafter, complainant paid installment in the month of January, 2020, again in the month of March, 2020 , April, 2020 , June, 2020, July, 2020, August, 2020, 17 installments but not regularly. Meaning thereby, the complainant was defaulter in payment of 13 installments(30 installments -  17 installments = 13 installments) with interest for default payment as well. Meaning thereby, the complainant is defaulter in payment of loan installments to O.P. No.1 and also has failed to prove that her scooty was taken away by O.P. No.1 and that O.P. No.2 was agent of O.P. No.1. The complainant has failed to submit any police documents to show that O.P. No.2 had taken away the scooty of the complainant which in fact the complainant had admitted that the police did not take any action. Meaning thereby, the case of the O.P. No.1 appears to be more probable that the O.P. No.2 is not known to O.P. No.1 and that the complainant has made out a false case to escape the liability of payment of loan amount to the O.P. No.1. According to the complainant her scooty was taken away by the O.P. No.2 on 27.02.2020 and the complainant issued a legal notice on 04.02.2021 i.e., after one year and then lodged police case on 10.03.2021 i.e., after more than one year of such alleged taking away of her scooty. Such facts prove that the complainant was not serious or vigilant about her cause. Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 for which the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. 

7. All the points are decided accordingly.

8. In the result, it is decided that the case of the complainant is dismissed, however, without cost.

9. Supply copy of this final order to both the parties.   

 

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.