DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 13 of 2023.

 

 

 

1. Smt. Shanku Paul Roy,

W/O. Sri Tutan Roy,

Resident of Chandrapur, 

P.S.-East Agartala,

P.O.-Agartala, Pin-799001,

Dist. West Tripura....................…....…...........................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.

Branch Office at Chittaranjan Road,

Above S.D. Electronics,

P.S.-East Agartala, Pin-799004, 

P.O.-Pratapgarh,

Dist.-West Tripura, …...............................................Opposite Party.

 

      __________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. : Sri Kushal Deb,

 

 

F I N A L     O R D E R

 

1. Smt. Shanku Paul Roy, herein after called the Complainant, has filed this complaint against the Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., herein after called the O.P. 

 

2. The allegation of the Complainant are that on 04/03/2020 the Complainant purchased a Truck vehicle for which the Complainant took a loan of Rs.5,25,000/- from the O.P. on condition to repay the loan amount at Rs.20,250/- per installment.  

 

3. After that her husband Sri Tutan Roy, the guarantor of the loan, also failed to pay installment and also COVID-19 pandemic broke out in the country for which the Complainant could not pay installment regularly. However, the Complainant paid Rs.1,71,140/- in total although irregularly. The Complainant asked for up-to-date statement of account which was not provided to her by the O.P. Instead on 20/01/2022 the O.P. took possession of the vehicle without any prior notice. The Complainant visited the Office of the O.P. but her request was not paid any heed. On 12/12/2022 the Complainant served legal notice and the O.P. replied by two letters dated 26/12/2022 & 10/01/2023.      

The O.P. sold the vehicle in auction for Rs.8,99,998/- which is more than the amount due by the Complainant to the O.P. Hence, this complaint for compensation and legal expenses.

 

5.       The O.P. did not contest the case as such vide order dated 19/04/2023 the case has been proceeding ex-parte against the O.P. 

 

6. The Complainant submitted evidence on affidavit and submitted printed copy of statement of account delivered by the O.P., legal notice of the Complainant, and letter dated 26/12/2022 & 10/01/2023 given by the O.P. to the Complainant.                        

 

7. Hearing argument the following points emerged for discussion and decision:

    (i). Whether Sri Tutan Roy, the guarantor of the loan is a necessary party?   

      (ii).  Whether the O.P. delivered any prior notice to the Complainant and Whether the O.P. gave any statement of account to the Complainant?    

    (iii). Whether there was any illegality in taking possession of the vehicle by the O.P. and consequent sale of the vehicle in auction? 

 

8. All the points are taken up together for discussion and decision. 

 

9.  Admittedly, the guarantor has not been impleaded a party in this case who assured the O.P. that if the Complainant failed to pay the loan installment, the guarantor shall indemnify the O.P. As such the complaint is bad for want-of necessary party. And the presumption is that the guarantor does not support the  case of the Complainant.       

 

10. The Complainant herself by Firisti submitted letter dated 26/12/2022 & 10/01/2023 and the statement of accounts given by the O.P. to the Complainant. As such it is not correct to say that the O.P. did not give any statement of account or that the Complainant have no prior knowledge that she was defaulter in payment of installment. It is a misnomer to understand that due to COVID-19 Pandemic, a loanee is excused in payment of interest which accrued during the Pandemic period by any circular of the Government of India. In fact, the only relief which was extended by the Government of India that no loanee could be compelled to pay loan installment during the Pandemic period.    

 

11. By letter dated 26/12/2022 the O.P. reminded the Complainant about the letter dated 22/01/2022 and the agreement dated 29/02/2020 that the Complainant had failed to pay the installment regularly and by letter dated 10/01/2023 the O.P. replied the notice dated 12/12/2022 of the Complainant and also reminded the Complainant the outstanding amount due. By letter dated 26/12/2022 the O.P. also intimated the Complainant that even after auction sale of the vehicle, the Complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.5279.62/- inclusive of interest. As such we do not find that the O.P. is guilty of illegal trade practice or there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. 

 

12.  Learned Counsel of the Complainant has referred a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission expounded in Amrik Singh Vs. Indusind Bank & other decided on 8th July, 2020 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission was pleased to decide that “under such circumstances” i.e. by not giving prior notice before confiscation of the vehicle and before conducting auction sale of the vehicle, the Bank suffered from deficiency in service. The circumstances in that case was that there was a clause in the agreement itself that prior notice was required to be given by the Bank. 

        In the case at hand the O.P., Bank has appeared at the stage of argument only. As such the O.P. Bank has not submitted written objection and consequently has failed to submit evidence and document. Therefore, it was incumbent for the Complainant either to submit copy of the agreement or to call for the agreement from the Bank to show that there was such clause in their agreement that prior notice by the O.P. Bank was a must. On the top of it nobody knows whether the guarantor was served any such notice or not. The guarantor Tutan Roy is the husband of the Complainant but Tutan Roy has not been impleaded a party either as complainant or as O.P. Even he has not been examined as a witness also.   

      All the points are decided accordingly.   

 

13. In the result the complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed which we hereby do however without cost. 

          The case stands disposed off.  

         Supply a certified copy of this final order to both the parties free of cost.                   

 

 

 

 

Announced.

 

 

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.