Tripura

StateCommission

A/12/2018

Sri. Chiranjyoti Chakma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

29 Aug 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.12.2018

 

 

 

1. Sri Chirajyoti Chakma,

S/o Sri Dhirendralal Chakma,

West Chanmari, Agartala, (Chakma Adom),

P.O. Kunjaban, West Tripura.

… … … … Appellant/Complainant.

 

 

Vs

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Tata Motors Finance,

Agartala Branch, Melarmath, 

P.O. Agartala Head Post Office,

Agartala, West Tripura.

… … … … Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Chandra Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                               In person.

For the Respondent:                                           Mr. Narayan De, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 29.08.2018.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.02.2018 passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.103 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum held as follows:-

“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.”    

2. Heard Mr. Chirajyoti Chakma, the appellant-complainant appearing in person as well as Mr. Narayan De, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance (hereinafter referred to as opposite party).
3. Facts of the case are as follows:-

The complainant applied for loan from the opposite party-Tata Motors Finance Ltd. for purchasing a Tata Sumo Gold CX vehicle after knowing about the terms and conditions. As per the terms and conditions, he is to pay the installment regularly. He had paid 11 installments with insurance amounting to Rs.85,000/- without any gap from 03.10.2016 to 14.08.2017 to the opposite party-Tata Motors Finance, but his vehicle was taken away. As such, he suffered a huge loss. Therefore, he claimed an amount of Rs.9,99,293/- by way of filing an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum for the loss he suffered and compensation for deficiency of service by Tata Motors Finance.

4. Opposite party, Tata Motors Finance appeared and filed their written statement denying the allegations made by the complainant. In the written statement it is stated that complainant is a defaulter in repayment of the installment numbers 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20, 22, 23, 27 to 44. More so, the complainant has also been guilty of late and part payment of the installment numbers 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 45, 46 and 47. It is the further case of the opposite party that the complainant was a chronic defaulter and late payer. The opposite party, Tata Motors Finance also claimed that Rs.1,16,417/- was not paid by the complainant. Thus the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The learned District Forum on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following points for deciding the case:

1. Whether the claim of the petitioner is justified?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation for the deficiency of service of the O.P.? 

6. Complainant produced Money Receipts, Statement of loan payment, letters and copy of the policy. Complainant also examined himself as P.W.1 in support of his case.
7. Opposite party, Tata Motors Finance, on the other hand, produced the Demand Notice, copy of Claim Petition by opposite party, copy of Notice of Arbitration Proceeding, copy of Postal Registration Slip, Contract details, Repayments, Repayment Schedule, Loan agreement. Opposite party also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, namely, Sabyashachi Datta.
8. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment as stated (supra).
9. Mr. Chakma, complainant in person submits that he was cheated by the opposite party-Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance, Agartala Branch as his deposited amount of Rs.34,000/- was not shown. He finally submits that the learned District Forum failed to consider his complaint case.
10. Mr. De, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum rightly decided the case as would be evident from Paragraph-7 and 8 of the impugned judgment which are as follows:-

“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.” 

He further submits that in Ramesh Kumar Sharma Vs Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited & Ors., I (2009) CPJ 502, it was held that when a vehicle is financed and the payment of installments not paid and in consequent thereto, the vehicle repossessed as per the agreement, the same cannot come within the deficiency of service. It is also stated that as per agreement, OP is free to take over the possession of the vehicle in default in payment of installment and put it to sale for recovery of the dues.

11. We have gone through the Loan cum Hypothecation cum Guarantee Agreement (Annexure-C to the written statement) and also the decision of the Sole Arbitrator Kainaz Irani in Application No.3825 of 2017 arising out of Arbitration Case No.FGYQG3897 of 2017. In Clause-23 of the Agreement, it is specifically stated,

“23. ARBITRATION

23.1 All disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of this Loan Agreement or as to the construction, meaning or effect hereof or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties hereunder shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Mumbai in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1896 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to a person to be appointed by the Lender. In the event of death, refusal, neglect, inability, or incapability of the person so appointed to act as an arbitrator, the Lender may appoint a new arbitrator. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned.”

12. In view of the aforesaid clause of arbitration, the opposite party-Tata Motors Finance Ltd. approached the Sole Arbitrator, Kainaz Irani and in arbitration case was registered as Arbitration Case No.FGYQG3897 of 2017. The Ld. Arbitrator issued notice twice to the complainant, the appellant herein, but the complainant did not appear before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Therefore, the Ld. Arbitrator passed an order on 23.06.2017 directing the complainant to handover the TATA Sumo Gold CX vehicle to the opposite party i.e. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and accordingly, the opposite party took the repossession of the said vehicle. We are of the considered opinion that the opposite party-Tata Motors Finance Ltd. has rightly taken over the possession of the vehicle which is the security created under the aforesaid Agreement and therefore hypothecated by the appellant-complainant in favour of the respondent.

Upon perusal of Paragraph-7 and 8 of the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the learned District Forum did not commit any wrong. Thus no interference is called for.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.