DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC - 103 of   2017

 

      Sri Chirajyoti Chakma,

S/O- Sri Dhirendralal Chakma,

West Chanmari, Agartala, (Chakma Adom),

P.O. Kunjaban, West Tripura. ….....…...Complainant.

 

 

            -VERSUS-

 

The Branch Manager,

Tata Motors Finance,

Agartala Branch, Melarmath, 

P.O. Agartala Head Post Office,

Agartala, West Tripura. ........... Opposite Party.

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : In person.

 

For the O.P. : Sri Narayan De,

   Advocates.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   21.02.2018.

 

J U D G M E N T

This case arises on the petition filed by one Chirajyoti Chakma U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that he had paid 11 installment with insurance  Rs.85,000/- without any gap from 03.10.2016 to 14.08.2017 to the Tata Motors Finance. But his vehicle was taken away and he suffered huge loss therefore he claimed the amount of Rs.9,99,293/- for the loss he suffered and compensation for deficiency of service by Tata Finance. 

 

2. O.P. Tata Motors Finance appeared and filed Written Statement denying the claim. It is stated that complainant applied for loan after knowing about the terms and condition. As per terms and condition he is to pay the installment regularly. He did not pay the installment regularly. He was a defaulter. The Fiance company claimed Rs.116417/- amount not paid. O.P. therefore prayed for dismissal of the claim.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I) Whether the claim of the petitioner is justified?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation for the deficiency of service of the O.P.?

 

4. Petitioner produced Money Receipts, statement of loan payment, letters and copy of the policy. Petitioner also produced his evidence  in support of the case. 

 

5. O.P. on the other hand, produced the Demand Notice, copy of Claim Petition by O.P., copy of Notice of Arbitration Proceeding, copy of Postal Registration Slip, Contract details, Repayments, Repayment Schedule, Loan agreement. O.P. also produced statement on affidavit of one witness Sabyashachi Datta.

 

6. On the basis of all these evidences we shall now determine the above points.

Findings and decision:

7. We have gone through the documents furnished by both the parties. From the contract details it is found that invoice amount was Rs. 5,50,616/-. Initial hire charge was Rs.76,616/-. Amount is to be repaid in 4 years, in 47 installments. Out of 47 installments only 11 installments was paid as admitted by the petitioner. 

8. From the scrutiny of Repayment challan it is evident that Rs.15,343/- installment amount was paid on 02.02.13 and Rs.15,210/- on 02.03.13 and 02.04.13. Thereafter no payment. Again Rs.15,210/- collected on 24.05.13. On 02.06.13 no payment. On 25.06.13 again Rs.15,210/- paid. On 02.07.13 no payment. On 02.08.13 no payment. On 24.08.13 Rs.14,360/- paid. Then on 02.10.13 again same amount paid. Thereafter no payment made. Less payment made in the year 2014, some time Rs.5,000/-, some time Rs.10,000/-. Rs.16,000/- paid in 18.01.15. Up to 31.03.15 Rs.6,000/- paid thereafter no payment. Again Rs.20,800/- paid on 05.10.16. Thereafter in the year 2017 it is found that Rs.5,000/- was collected on 14.08.17. It is true that petitioner was defaulter. But up to 2017 O.P., Finance Company collected some amount from him. But as the dues increased and claim was on higher side so matter was referred to Arbitrator and notice was also supplied to him. As per agreement in case of any dispute matter is to decided by Arbitrator so Arbitrator decided the matter. And the Arbitrator passed the order on 23rd June 2017. That Arbitrator order was not challenged. As per that order O.P. was empowered to take possession of the vehicle and keep it in custody. So accordingly it was done by the Finance company. There was no deficiency by the Finance Company. Petitioner may get it back on payment of installment amount to the O.P. as per agreement. 

 

9. It is found that petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the agreement by not paying the due amount. He is to strictly follow the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. But he failed to do so. However, Tata Motors is to return the vehicle to the petitioner if the petitioner could pay the loan amount dues. We find no other deficiency of service by the O.P. Petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation for deficiency of service. We direct the O.P. to return the vehicle to the petitioner on payment of loan amount. Case is disposed accordingly. 

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA SRI  U. DAS

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA