West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/130/2013

Tapas Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.130/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 13/06/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Panda. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. K. Maity. Advocate.                                   

          

          Tapas Panda, S/o Rabindra Panda of  Vill-Adlabad, Word No.12, P.O.- Egra, P.S.-Egra, Dist-

          Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

      The Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited, Kharagpur Branch Office at- O.T. Road,

      near L.I.C., P.O.-Kharagpur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur...……………Op/Ops.

          The case of the complainant Sri Tapas Panda, in short, is that a Tata Nano Private Car registration No.WB-20Z/4097 was purchased from the opposite party in terms of Hire Purchased Agreement No.500651639.  Total 47 installments were paid last on 1/08/2013.  But on 23/08/2013 the vehicle was forcibly snatched away by some musclemen claiming themselves as agents of the Op.  from the possession of the complainant.  The complainant pursued the Op on it.  But the matter was not settled rather set a subject under threatening of sale of the said vehicle.  Stating the case the complainant prays before us for passing an order directing the Op to give return of the vehicle with litigation cost of 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only.

           The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law and the same is barred by jurisdiction as there exists an arbitration award dated 13/07/2012 with direction to the complainant to repay all dues.  But the complainant did not care of it.  Even so, on several times the Op has drawn the attention of the complainant for taking appropriate steps towards the matter of repayment of the entire loan as per agreement and since the financier is the real owner of the vehicle having right to take repossession of the vehicle. Under such fact and circumstances, there is no occasion for holding deficiency in service against the Op.     

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

          Issues:

    Contd……………..P/2

- ( 2 ) -  

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?
3. Whether the case is barred by law of jurisdiction?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the complainant has already made payment of total 47 installments and there is no further dues payable by him.  Under such circumstances the Op took repossession of the vehicle in order to defraud upon him. 

              Ld. Advocate for the Op on the other hand submitted that the complainant has no scope to agitate the matter before this Forum since there is appropriate jurisdiction open for the complainant if he is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the arbitration award dated 13/07/2012.  But without preferring for such scheduled steps, the complainant has motivatedly come before this Forum forsecuring delivery of the vehicle which is not owned by him till complete repayment is made as per Hire Purchased Agreement. Thus the case should be dismissed.

              We have carefully considered the case along with the documents admitted by the parties vice-versa. It appears that there is Hire Purchased Agreement and the parties are binding with the terms and conditions of the same.  So we have no jurisdiction to go beyond the schedule terms of the agreement.  That apart, the subject was already considered in arbitration proceeding and accordingly the same was disposed of through passing of an Award dated 13/07/2012 with direction to the complainant for repayment of dues in respect of the loan duly availed of by him in purchasing the vehicle. 

               In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed here in above, it is held and decided that there is no valid cause of action and jurisdiction for consideration of this case in favour of the complainant.  As a result, all the issues are disposed of against the complainant. 

                             Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is  dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                            Member                                  President

                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur.