View 3872 Cases Against Tata Motors
View 30275 Cases Against Finance
View 1349 Cases Against Tata Motors Finance
Sri Rutik Ranjan Behera filed a consumer case on 24 Nov 2022 against The Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/72/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Feb 2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA, ODISHA.
Present: 1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.
2. Sri Satish Kumar Panigrahi, Member.
Date of Institution: 06.08.2019
Date of Final Hearing: 10.11.2022
Consumer Complaint No. – 72/2019
Sri. RutikRanjanBehera,
S/o: Sri. GangadharBehera, At/PO: Neheru Nagar,
2nd Lane, Ps/Dist: Rayagada, Odisha-765001. ....Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager, TATA Motors Finance Ltd.,
IMFL, Sambalpur, Branch, 2nd Floor, Balaji Towers,
G.M.College Road, Sambalpur, Dist: Sambapur,(Odisha) ....O.Ps/Respondents.
Shri R.K.Panda, President. |
Brief facts of the case:-
Brief facts of the case is that the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (herein after called O.Ps)for non-issueof N.O.C towards finance vehicle INDIGO ECS LX Car bearing Regd. No.OD-02X-5565 for which the complainant sought redressal.
This District Commission examined the entire materials on record and given a thoughtful consideration tothe arguments advancedby the parties touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.
FINDING.
During the course of hearing the O.Ps 1 to 3 have filed memo before the Commission where-in they submitted that after receiving the notice from this commission the O.P( TATA finance) for issue of NOC towards finance vehicle INDIGO ECS LX Car bearing Regd. No.OD-02X-5565. The O.Ps had sent the N.O.C and related documents namely – 1,2,3 to the complainant in form of speed post bearing No.ED558119081IN Date.12.01.2021(copies of the postal receipt is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-I. Letter Dt. 4.1.2021 to the complainant by the O.P marked Annexure-2).
1. Termination form 35 duly signed by the approving authority.
2. NOC addressed to the concerned RTO.
3. Letter to the insurance co. for deleting endorsement.
On perusal it found that the complainant was found absent in person on several adjournments through notice has been duly served to confirm the truth of the version of the O.Ps.The advocate for the complainant also could not able to produce the complainant but being the representative counsel of the complainant the advocate Sri Ram Mohan Patnaik was present during the course of hearing and not objected the memo Dated. 27.01.2022 filed by the O.Ps in respect of the issuance of NOC to the complainant.
Heard the parties in view of the above facts and findings after perusal of therecord and memo filed by the O.Ps inter alia other documents issued by the O.Ps infavour of the complainant. The memo dated. 27.01.2022 is allowed.
ORDER.
Accordingly the present dispute mitigated andthe O.Ps wriggled out from liabilities as per allegation by complainant on his complaint and hence the case disposed off on merit. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
Interim Application proceedings pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.
The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
Order dictated and corrected by me and pronounced in the open court on this 24th. Day of November, 2022 under our signature & seal of this commission.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR PANDA)
PRESIDENT
(SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.