Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 03.05.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- with 14% interest.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased a second hand vehicle on 11.09.2011 bearing model no. TATA Dicor four wheeler i.e. after paying Rs. 1,50,000/- to the opposite party no. 1. The opposite party has fixed the EMI as Rs. 12,800/-. The complainant was paying EMI to opposite party no. 1 on due date from the date of sanctioning of the amount.
It is further case of the complainant that opposite party no. 1 had not delivered the said original documents to debtor ( complainant).
It is further case of the complainant that in the mean time the opposite party no. 1 came to the complainant and snatched the vehicle without signing any reason. The complainant had made complaint to opposite party no. 2 regarding this matter and had also filed a complaint before banking ombudsmen.
It is also case of the complainant that banking ombudsmen had passed an order that such case cannot be look into by ombudsmen hence the matter was referred to competent authority by banking ombudsmen.
It is further case of the complainant that he had approached to the police and stated all facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter the matter had been investigated by the police and the disputed vehicle has been seized from the possession of opposite party no. 1 and same is lying in Gandhi Maidan Police Station. The complainant has also filed a Misc. case no. 65/13 before court of learned C.J.M., Patna as will appear from annexure – 2.
On behalf of opposite party written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. The opposite party has asserted that complainant had entered in an agreement for purchase of second hand vehicle TATADicor from Ram Chandra Sharaf and not from the bank. The bank has not received Rs. 1,50,000/- as down payment from the complainant rather the complainant might have paid the aforesaid amount to the seller of vehicle. In Para - 12 (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the written statement filed by the bank following facts has been written, “that said loan application was sanctioned on 12.09.2011 to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- repayable in 34 EMIs.”
“the loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was disbursed through the complainant’s account and he utilized the case by investing the same but original documents of the vehicle after purchasing was not deposited in the bank which was ought to have been delivered by the seller.”
“the complainant was required to get the vehicle hypothecated in favour of the bank by getting the name of bank registered on registration book but the same was not done despite undertaking given by him.”
“The complainant never paid installments regularly though the loan amount was standard prior to filing of the complaint but thereafter left to pay installment due to which the account became irregular and classified as non - performing asset on 13.05.2013.”
It has been further asserted by the opposite party no. 1 that the complainant did not act in accordance with the terms and condition of the sanctioned order by getting the name of the financing bank endorsed on the registration book with District registration office. The opposite party has vehemently stated that opposite parties neither lodged any complaint before the police for the seizure of the vehicle nor the bank had snatched the vehicle.
It has been further stated that the complainant has already approached the court of C.J.M., Patna for release of vehicle alleged to be lying in Gandhi Maidan Police Station.
On behalf of complainant a reply of the written statement has been filed only denying all the facts of written statement without any basis.
We have gone through the record of the case and have narrated the facts briefly in forgoing paragraphs.
From bare perusal of Para – 3 as well as annexure – 1 and 2 of the complaint petition it is crystal clear that the matter is pending before the learned C.J.M., Patna. The opposite party no. 1 i.e. bank has categorically denied that no down payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made to the bank. The bank has also denied to have lodged any complaint before the police. It has been also stated by the bank that although amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was disbursed to the complainant by the bank but the complainant had not submitted original documents of the vehicle to the bank after purchasing the vehicle nor he completed the formalities of hypothecation in favour of the bank.
It goes without saying that this forum has no jurisdiction to decide the controversial as well as disputed fact of the parties. Apart from it the matter appears to be pending in the court of law.
For the discussion made above this complaint petition stands dismissed but without cost.
Member President
