Ld Advocate for the complainant and OP1 are present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission in 4 pages and 2 separate sheet of paper.

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the Complainant is a permanent inhabitant of above mentioned address  and opposite Party No.1, is the vehicle financer and opposite party No. 2 is the local agent of the financer i.e. OP-1.The complainant was the registered owner of one Truck, being Registration No. WB 59B-8013. Owing to financial crisis the complainant could not run the said vehicle [Truck] smoothly, for the said reason, he had decided to sale the said vehicle [Truck] by the maximum retail price Rs. 8,50,000/- to one Sk. Abuisa, OP No. 03, wanted to purchase the said vehicle from the complainantat the said retail price Rs. 8,50,000/-. Thereafter the OP No. 03, applied for vehicle loan before OP No. 01, through his local representative i.e. OP No. 2 and the OP No. 01, assured to OP 03, that the said loan amount will be approved if the ownership of the said vehicle will transfer to the name of the OP No. 03. On that assurance, the complainant has transferred the ownership of the said vehicle to the name of OP No. 03, on good faith on 20.01.2020 at RTO office, Balurghat, South Dinajpur district. It was very unfortunate to the complainant, suddenly, OP No. O1, the approve the said loan only for Rs. 4,50,000/- on 02.12.2019. On that situation, the OP No. 03, assured the complainant to pay the rest amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and when the OP No. 01, clear up the loan amount to the account of the OP No. 03, then OP No. 03, would transfer the said loan amount to the account of the complainant. The OP No. 03, has already paid of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the complainant till date but the OP No. 01, has not  paid the said loan amount till date either to the account of OP No. 3 or to the complainant. The OP No. 1, submitted “Form 34 [See rule 60]” before Registration Authority at RTO office, Balurghat, South Dinajpur District to making an agreement of hypothecation of their company’s name in the Certificate of Registration on 02.12.2019,On discussion with the OP No. 1, the complainant handed over one cancelled cheque being No. 000027 of Bandhan Bank, Tamluk branch to the OP No. 1, for the payment purpose of the said loan amount. The complainant was totally motionless for that incidentand the complainant requested them not to do so, but they did not hear anything even also threatened the complainant. The complainant repeatedly communicated with the OPs over telephone and also through letter but in vain till date. So, it is clear that all the OPs deal with the complainant with some ulterior motive, illegal intention and also by the unlawful way, which is totally gross conspiracy against the complainant and presently OPs threatened to complainant. The above acts done by the OPs, are totally illegal, conspiracy and also unfair trade practice. Owing to this incident, the complainant has fallen in a great distress, as he invested his full mental and financial capacity. In this condition, the complainant is praying before theCommission as following : i. order to pay the loan amount i.e. Rs. 4,50,000/- to the complainant against the OP No. 1, ii.order to pay the rest amount i.e. Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant by the OP No. 3 and Rs. 15,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 8,000/- for legal expenses.

           Notices were served upon the ops. The op-1 has contested the case through its Ld Advocate by filing Written Version against the complaint. The ops-2 &3 have not contested the case; as such the proceeding of the case runs ex-parte against them.  In its written version the op-1 has stated inter alia that the Opposite Party No 1 is the director of Aris Capital Pvt. Ltd. Aris Capital Pvt. Ltd is an NBFC and it mainly is involved in the business of providing finance Loan for purchasing the old vehicle for commercial purposes. There is no cause of action for filling this Complaint.The Opposite Party No 1  does not know the status whether the complainant claimed that he was the Truck Owner Being Registration No-WB59B-8013. The facts mentioned in Para 2 and 3 are not known to the Opposite Party No 1 and he possesses no knowledge about the mentioned allegation. The facts mentioned in Para 4 and 5 are not true. Before signing any formal agreement the complainant himself transferred the name of the owner of the vehicle without giving any intimation to Aris Capital Pvt. Ltd. The facts mentioned in Para 7 are not maintainable and there is no loan agreement regarding and relating to the said vehicle.The Opposite Party No 1 does not know for what kind of transfer they are talking about in Para 8.The Opposite Party No 3 made false promises to Complainant regarding Loan of said Vehicle. The said matter does not have any remote connection with Aris Capital Private Limited. The Opposite Party No 1 came to know that the complaint received Rs 3,50,000/- from Opposite Party No 3 by the personal capacity of both the parties. The Aris Capital Pvt.Ltd has no knowledge regarding this matter and Aris Capital Pvt. Ltd does not give any approval for this. The facts mentioned in Para 10 are partly true. After finding the details of the truck the Aris Capital Pvt.Ltd came to know that; the Opposite Party No 3 by manipulation became able to transfer the name from SK Rejabul. The facts were not Known to the Opposite Party No 1 until this complaint letter came to the office of the Opposite Party No 1.The facts mentioned in Para 11 to 16 are not true. That Aris Capital Pvt. Ltd is a well-known NBFC Company and it provide pan India Service to its customers. The Aris Capital Pvt. Ltd never sanctioned any loan in favor of SK Abuisa regarding mentioned vehicle. The Opposite Party No 3 is aware of the fact that he was an old customer of Aris Capital Private Limited, He was under the impression that if he was able to transfer the vehicle name in favour of Aris Capital Private limited, then he would be able to undertake the loan amount without much of a hassle. It is in knowledge that during the entire occurrence of events, he did not apply to Aris Capital Private Limited for the grant of any fresh loan against the vehicle.  Mr.SK Abuisa,op-3 was a NPA customer of Aris Capital Pvt. Limited ,op-1. He was not a potential customer of Aris Capital Pvt. Ltd. So there is no chance for giving further credit to that same customer. The Opposite Party No 1 does not know about the financial transaction between complainant and the Opposite Party No 3. The Opposite Party No 1 is in no liability to pay damages or compensation to the complainant. For the aforesaid mentioned reason and situation, the Opposite Party No 1 is also claiming the cost of the Court proceedings and additional charges for harassment, a total sum of Rs 50,000/-. The instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Upon pleadings of both parties the following points for determination are framed.

Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?    

2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused and assessed the affidavit of the complainant, written version filed by op-1, evidence of both parties and other documents. We have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by the Ld counsel of rival parties.

On careful analysis of evidence of the complainant it appears that the complainant deposed that he was the registered owner of one Truck, being Registration No. WB 59B-8013. Owing to financial crisis the complainant could not run the said vehicle [Truck] smoothly, for the said reason, he had decided to sale the said vehicle [Truck] by the maximum retail price Rs. 8,50,000/- to one Sk. Abuisa, OP No. 03, wanted to purchase the said vehicle from the complainant at the said retail price Rs. 8,50,000/-. Thereafter the OP No. 03, applied for vehicle loan before OP No. 01, through his local representative i.e. OP No. 2 and the OP No. 01, assured to OP 03, that the said loan amount will be approved if the ownership of the said vehicle will transfer to the name of the OP No. 03. On that assurance, the complainant has transferred the ownership of the said vehicle to the name of OP No. 03, on good faith on 20.01.2020 at RTO office, Balurghat, South Dinajpur district.

Now, on evaluation of the above evidence of complainant, it appears that it is the main contention of the complainant is that  there was a negotiation amongst ops 1,2 & 3 ; the complainant was not a party to that negotiation. The complainant has not stated in what manner he got the assurance for transfer of the vehicle in the name of op-3. He had transferred the ownership of the said vehicle in the name of OP No. 03 if any, on good faith on 20.01.2020 at RTO office, Balurghat, South Dinajpur district at his own accord and  own risk.

The complainant has failed to prove the following aspects ;1) there was any written tripartite agreement amongst complainant, ops 1 & 3 ,(2) written agreement for sale of the vehicle at RS.8,50,000/- with op-3 and op-1 as confirming party and 3) the op-1 granted any loan as claimed by op-3 on the context that op-1 has asserted that op-3 is not a potential borrower who was declared NPA.

Moreover, from the RC of the vehicle it appears that complainant was registered owner of the vehicle upto 7 MAR,2019, how he could sell the vehicle on20.01.2020. According to the complainant he is a seller of vehicle to op-3,not a buyer himself. There is also no written agreement in between complainant and op-1 for granting loan. So ,the complainant is not aconsumer within the purview of section -2(7) of the C P Act ,2019.The instant case is not maintainable in its present form and in law.

In the above backdrop,we are of the view that the complainant has failed to bring home any element of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against the ops. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Thus, the case does not succeed.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/64 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the op-1 and dismissed ex-parte against ops -2 &3.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to each of the complainant and op-1 free of cost.