DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 10th day of January, 2020
C.D Case No. 58 of 2017
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Sri Ashok Kumar Das
S/o Jagabandhu Das
Vill: Kalidaspur,
Po: Balimeda,
Ps: Naikanidihi,
Dist: Bhadrak ……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Concerned Authority,
M/S BASANTI AUTO AGENCY
At/Po: Charampa,
Ps: Bhadrak (T),
Dist: Bhadrak
2. The Concerned Authority,
M/S BASANTI AUTO AGENCY,
At: Januganj Golei (Near NH- 5),
Po/Ps/Dist: Balasore
3. The Concerned Authority,
M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.
At: Januganj,
Dist: Balasore
4. The Concerned Authority,
M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.
2nd Floor, Sadhana House,
Behind Mahindra Tower, 750, B.P Marg, Worli,
Mumbai- 400018 (Maharastra)
5. The Concerned Authority,
M/S Mahindra & Mahindr Ltd.,
Automatic Sector, Mahindra Tower,
3rd Floor, Akruli Road, Kandivali (East),
Mumbai- 400101 (Maharastra)
……………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri S. Tripathy, Adv & Others
Counsel For the O.Ps No. 1 & 2: Sri B. Sahu (B), Adv
Counsel For the O.Ps No. 3 & 4: Sri B. K. Tripathy, Adv & Others
Counsel For the O.Ps No. 5: Sri S. C. Pradhan, Adv & Others
Date of hearing: 11.09.2019
Date of order: 10.01.2020
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps.
The facts of the this case as described in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant wanted to purchase a Mahindra Verito Car and accordingly contacted OP No. 1 to know the price etc. of the said car. OP No. 1, being inquisitive, enquired to know the source of finance to be made for acquisition of the vehicle where the complainant disclosed to have decided to avail financial support from any commercial Bank which is not yet decided. At the relevant point of time some other persons were also present who later on disclosed to be the agents of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services who along with OP No. 1 insisted upon the complainant to avail such credit support from their company and also succeeded in convincing the complainant. Finally the complainant agreed to have the credit support from the said company. OP No. 1 along with the agents present their disclosed that the cost of the vehicle is of Rs 6,45,369/- as against which OP No. 3 can provide credit support to the tune of Rs 5,16,000/- and the complainant would have to deposit the differential amount Rs 1,29,369/- and other expenditure to be incurred for registration, insurance etc. Accordingly the complainant paid the demanded amount towards margin money and others to OP No. 1 and thereafter OP No. 3 sanctioned a sum of Rs 5,16,000/- with the approval of OP No. 4. After completion of documentation and compliance of all requirements as prescribed by the financer, released the loan amount and placed order before OP No. 1 for supply of the vehicle. After completion of documentation, complainant demanded for a copy of the hypothecation and loan agreement, sanction letter and repayment schedule which was promised to be supplied by the financing O.Ps within a period of 15 days but did not makeover the said documents till the date of filing of this case which kept the complainant in darkness about repayment schedule etc. However the complainant went on repaying the loan installments, as was orally instructed, in every month till the final installment due. After repayment of the loan to the full satisfaction of OP No. 3 & 4, complainant demanded for issue of No Objection Certificate (NOC) so as to enable him to make the vehicle bearing registration No. OD-02H-2515 hypothecation free but OP No. 3 assured to provide the same within a month. The complainant went on requesting the O.Ps a good number of times to issue NOC but all of his efforts ended in fiasco without yielding any positive result which compelled the complainant to take shelter in this Forum in filing a dispute for adjudication and to direct the O.Ps to issue NOC along with cost and compensation.
OP No. 1 & 2 objected the claim of the complainant and contested the case. In submitting written version the above answering O.Ps have raised the question of maintainability of the case as these O.Ps have not caused any deficiency of service and have not resorted to unfair trade practice. Their action in the entire transaction was limited up to supply of vehicle to the complainant which has been done flawlessly. Therefore, incorporating OP No. 1 & 2 in this case is meaningless and the complaint is not sustainable against OP No. 1 & 2.
OP No. 3 & 4 protested the facts of the complaint and contested the case. In submitting their written version these O.Ps have raised the question of maintainability of the case in Consumer Forum in view of the prayers made in the petitions. The complainant has not alleged about the transaction made during the repayment of the loan up to 20.03.2016 so long as he was repaying the loan installments. It was agreed between the parties to repay the loan in 47 installments as per repayment schedule till liquidation of the total loan amount of Rs 6,86,760/- including interest cost. After repayment of 34 installments, the complainant stopped payment of the residual loan installments as a result of which the O.Ps charged overdue interest @ 3% on the overdue amount together with late payment charges and other costs as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. As such the claim raised by the complainant to issue NOC in his favour is absolutely illegal and irrelevant. Hence the complaint raised by the complainant does not bear any merit and liable to be rejected.
OP No. 5 in submitting the written version, pleaded that it is not a necessary party to this case and the entire complaint does not bear any allegation against the answering OP. The complainant has even not whispered a single word against this OP which proves the answering OP is not a necessary party to this case. All the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant are against OP No. 1 to 4 and therefore the case may be dismissed against OP No. 5.
Gone through the complaint of the complainant, written versions submitted by the O.Ps, perused materials on record and observed as follows.
1. The preliminary allegation of the complainant is that after repayment of all loan dues to OP No. 3, the O.Ps despite repeated requests for issue of NOC, the O.Ps did not respond to the complainant and also did not initiate any action for issuance of NOC. On the other hand the O.Ps contented in stating that the complainant has paid only Rs 4,96,830/- in 34 monthly installments as against the total loan dues of Rs 6,86,760/- keeping a balance of Rs 1,89,930/- excluding penal interest and other costs. At present the complainant is liable to pay Rs 2,71,272/- so as to enable OP No. 3 & 4 to issue NOC. Unless the mentioned amount is paid by the complainant to the credit of his loan account maintained with OP No. 3 & 4, it is next to impossible to issue NOC in favour of complainant and prayed to the Forum for issuing direction to the complainant to clear up his dues to the full satisfaction of the O.Ps.
2. The complainant claims to have submitted the money receipts in support of his payment. On verification of materials on record it is observed that the complainant has submitted as many as 10 numbers of money receipts which are given effect in the books of accounts of OP No. 3 & 4. The account statement submitted by OP No. 3 & 4 reveals that the complainant has paid only 34 installments out of 47 loan installments due to be paid. Since the complainant has utterly failed to adduce adequate evidence in support of his contentions it is believed that the complainant has taken false plea and has failed to prove his claim.
In view of the above analysis it is crystal that the O.Ps are not deficient in providing service to the complainant as and when necessary and have never resorted to any type of unfair trade practice. Hence it is ordered;
- ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed against the O.Ps without cost and compensation.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 10th January, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
