Orissa

Cuttak

CC/106/2014

Sanjay Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

A B Mohanty

27 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.106/2014

Sanjay Beheera,m

Vill/PS:Niali,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                            … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.        The Branch Manager,

Aditya Motors,

Unit of Aditya Car Automobiles (P) Ltd.,

At:N.H-5,Bamphakuda,PO:Phulnakhara,

P.S:Cuttack Sadar,Dist:Cuttack.

 

2.        The Branch Manager,

Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd.,

At:2^nd Floor,Urmila Complex,

Madhupatna,Link Road,

(Infront of Durga Mandap),

P.S:Madhupatna,Dist:Cuttack..

 

3.        The C.E.O,

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.,

At:Sadhana House,2^nd Floor,Behind Mahindra Tower,

570 PB Marg,Worli,Mumbai-40018.                                                   … Opp. Parties.

 

Present: Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   01.08.2014

Date of Order: 27.07.2017.

 

For the complainant:      Sri A.B.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.1 :                  Sri A.K.Kanungo,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2 &  3:    Sri R.K.Papttnaik,Adv. & Associates

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Member.

                The case of the complainant is against deficiency in service and unfair trade practiceon the part of O.Ps.

1. The case in nutshell is that the complainant purchased a Maxximo Mini Van VXBS 30A from O.P No.1.  He paid Rs.10,000/- on 30.08.2013 and Rs.30,000/- on 02.09.2013 for the purpose(Annexure-A).  The cost of the vehicle was Rs.3,89,285/-.(Annexure-B) and the finance was arranged from O.P No.2.  Complainant got a book from O.P No.2 (Annexure-C).  The vehicle was insured with IFFCO-TOKIO Insurance Company on paying a premium of Rs.19,860/-(Annexure-D).  Complainant repaid to O.P No.2 a sum of Rs.7000/- on 18.10.2013 and a sum of Rs.4080/- on 31.10.2013(Annexure-E &F respectively).  On 03.12.2013 the vehicle was in breakdown condition on the road and was unable to ply.  The complainant surrendered the vehicle before O.P No.1 vide receipt No.9657 dt.04.12.2013 (Annexure-G).  O.P.1 gave a letter (Annexure-H & Annexure-I)) to be handed over to the service Engineer, Lucas Indian Service b ut and demanded huge amount for repair.  Complainant wanted to get back the vehicle from O.P No.1 but he failed.  Complainant issued a legal notice to O.P No.1 and wanted to get back the R.C.Book, fitness certificate of the vehicle (Annexure-J).  The complainant failed to pay the E.M.I and apprehended that the vehicle would be seized by O.P No.2 and served a legal notice on O.P No.2 (Annexure-K).  O.P No.1 refused to return R.C. Book, Fitness certificate and permit to the complainant (Annexure-L).  O.P No.3 served notice on the complainant to repay a sum of Rs.4,15,051/- towards outstanding loan amount(Annexure-M).  O.P No.3 served another notice to the complainant indicating appointment of Arbitrator for the purpose to decide the dispute (Annexure-N).  Arbitration case was lodged vide No.644/2014 and copy of petition was send to the complainant vide Regd. Post(Annexure-O).  The complainant asked O.P No.2 for a copy of loan agreement but he was refused.  Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Forum.  He has prayed this Hon’ble Forum to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice and deficiency in service ,Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.  Thus he had made a total claim of Rs.3,50,000/-.
2. O.P No.1 vide their written brief dt.09.02.2015 has intimated that the complainant had purchased a Mahindra Maxximo Mini Van by availing a loan of Rs.3,70,000/- from O.P No.2 . As per loan sanction letter O.P No.2 was entitled to receive the following amounts from the complainant (Annexure-A/1).

1. Margin money                                          Rs.19,258/-
2. Documentation charges                            Rs.  1,251/-
3. Processing fees                                        Rs.  3,700/-
4. Adv. Installment                                      Rs.11,280/-
5. Ist installment                                          Rs.  2,070/-
6. Others.                                                     Rs.  1,000/-

   Total:                          Rs.38,559/-

The O.P No.1 has  received a sum of Rs.19,800/- towards insurance, Rs.3000/- towards registration charges and Rs.150/- towards temporary insurance charges.  Total Rs.22,950/-.

3. Thus O.P No.1 was supposed to receive Rs.61,569.00 from the complainant i.e. Rs.38,559/- for O.P.2 and Rs.22,950/- for O.P.1 but has allowed a scheme discount of Rs.10,000/- and has received Rs.51,509/- from the complainant for which necessary money receipts are provided for the purpose(Annexure-B/1) serial).  The cost of the vehicle was Rs.3,89,258/- only.(copies of vehicle order vide Annexure-C/1). Complainant had not paid any amount towards cost of registration and fitness certificate and permit of the said vehicle since he had opted to apply for the same at his own cost and convenience.  On 04.12.2013 the starting problem of the vehicle was detected and the complainant was asked to change the same at Lucas India Services, Bhubaneswar as it was within warranty period.  Complainant took a letter from O.P No.1 and also took the self starter to be delivered to the Service Manager of Lucas Indian Service, Bhubaneswar but the same was not delivered at Lucas Indian Service, Bhubaneswar.  The complainant did not turn up to take the vehicle.  The said vehicle is still kept with O.P No.1 in spite of several telephone calls made to the complainant to get it repaired and take back the same.  The vehicle is still parked with O.P No.1 without paying the required parking fees by the complainant.
4. O.P No.2 vide their written version dt.01.05.2015 has intimated that the complainant had availed a loan from O.P No.2 amounting to Rs.3,70,000/- for the purpose of buying a Mahindra Maxximo Mini Van vide loan A/c No.2780709 dt.12.09.2013.  The loan was repayable in 47 E.M.Is during the period from 12.09.2013 to 10.07,.2017 of which the Ist E.M.I as Rs.11,280/- and rest E.M.is were of Rs.11,080/-(Annexure-1).  The complainant had paid only 2 installments amounting to Rs.22,360/- and is a chronic defaulter.  As on 14.06.2014 the O.P No.2 has recalled the loan outstanding amounting to Rs.4,15,051/-.  Arbitration proceeding has started against the complainant as per clause-15 of the agreement and the case is still pending with the arabitrator.
5. We have gone through the case in details, perused the documents minutely as submitted by the complainant and as well as by the O.Ps.  The complainant purchased a Mahindra Mixximo Mini Van from O.P No.1 on 31.08.2013 and availed a loan from O.P No.2 for the purpose vide loan agreement No.2780709 dt.12.09.2013 for Rs.3,70,000/-.  On 04.12.2013 the self starter of the said vehicle was found defective for which the complainant kept the vehicle with O.P No.1 and was advised by O.P No.1 to get another self starter from M/s. Lucas Indian Service, Bhubaneswar since the same was under the warranty period of one year.  The complainant received the defective self starter for exchange along with a letter of O.P No.1 to M/s. Lucas Indian Service, Bhubaneswar but till date has neither brought the self starter for replacement nor taken the vehicle from the yard of the O.P No.1.  The complainant has only repaid Rs.22,360/- to O.P No.2 and since the  loan was not repaid regularly O.P No.2 has recalled the entire balance as on 14.06.2014 amounting to Rs.4,15,051/- and has filed arbitration proceeding against the complainant.  The complainant had also failed to prove that he had paid for cost of registration, road permit, fitness certificate etc to O.P No.1 for which O.P No.1 is not liable for such facts.  Loan dues payable to O.P No.2 are also not paid by the complainant and the complainant has become a defaulter.  The complainant has also not participated in the hearings during the period from 05.08.2016 to 17.07.2015 on 14 occasions which clearly indicates that the complainant has nothing to say further in his defense.

   ORDER

Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above, we have observed that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps. Hence the case is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 27^th    day of July,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

   (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                       Member.

 

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                (  Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                    President.

 

 

                                                                                               (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                          Member(W).