DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 60 of 2018

 

Sri Sanath Sarkar,

S/O- Sri Milan Chandra Sarkar,

Vill. & P.O.-Bijoynagar, P.S.-Sabroom,

Dist.-South Tripura, .…..…...........................Complainant.

 

                           VERSUS

 

1). The General Manager, Tripura Scheduled Castes

Co.Operative Development Corporation Ltd.,

Lake Chowmuhani, Krishnanagar, P.O.-Agartala,

P.S.-West Agartala, Dist.-West Tripura. 

Pin-799001

 

2). The Managing Director, 

Niladri Motors, N.H.-44, A.A. Road,

Chanpur, Kashipur, Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799008.

 

3). The Niladri Motors, 

Authorized Dealer of TATA Motors,

Passenger & UV Division, A.A. Road,

N.H.-44, Kashipur, Agartala, West Tripura, 

Pin-799008 …............................................Opposite parties. 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

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 : Sri Kanak Lal Biswas,

  Sri Samir Das,

  Advocates. 

For the O.P. No.1 : Sri Prasanta Kr. Paul,

  Sri Ajoy Kr. Chowdhury,

  Sri Prabir Kr. Chakraborty,

  Sri Bimal Choudhuri,

   Advocates.       

For the O.P. No.2 & 3 :  Sri Sudipta Sekhar Debnath,                                                                                                                           

   Sri Monoj Debnath,

   Advocates. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 24/06/2019

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Sri Sanath Sarkar, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant being an unemployed person had applied for loan to the General Manager, Tripura Scheduled Castes Cooperative Development Corporation Limited, Agartala, O.P. No.1 for sanction of loan for purchasing a motor vehicle (Jeep) for the purpose of self employment. As per prayer of the Complainant the O.P. No.1 had duly sanctioned a loan under “Jeep scheme” vide provisional selection letter No.F.28-Corpn. SC 2011 516-70 dated 29/11/2012 and that thereafter vide memo No.F.65(2455)Corpn.) /STDC/ loan/145-46 dated 22/06/2012 the O.P. No.1 sanctioned loan amount of Rs.5,32,000/- in favour of the Complainant for purchase of the Jeep.  As per the said memorandum total cost of the scheme for purchase of the vehicle was Rs.5,71,000/- wherein Corporation's portion of loan was Rs.5,32,000/-, Borrower's margin was Rs.29,000/- & Subsidy from the Govt. was Rs.10,000/-. As per the terms and conditions of the loan, interest was @6% P.A. for Corporation's portion of loan and repayment should be made by 48 equal monthly installment @ Rs.13,743/-  for the principal amount and the interest will be charged extra on calculation from time to time. It was further mentioned in the memorandum that the repayment will commence after 30 days of disbursement of the loan for the vehicle.    

The Complainant has alleged in his complaint that the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 in violating the supply order dated 11/07/2012 issued by the O.P. No.1 most illegally and with an ulterior motive on 26/07/2012 delivered to him one Venture EX.BS-111 vehicle whose price was Rs.5,09,322/-, instead of Jeep  but the said O.Ps. had unjustly received Rs.5,71,000/- from him. The Complainant further alleged that he was compelled to take delivery of the said vehicle from the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 and that after using the said vehicle for countable dates he found the vehicle giving mechanical problems for which the vehicle remained off road. Faced with such situation the Complainant was unable to earn anything  from his vehicle. He took up the matter with the O.Ps. and also approached the O.P. No.1 praying for exonerating him from payment of the loan money. The complainant also stated in his complaint that since last five year prior to the filing of the complaint to this Forum the vehicle has been lying ideal under his custody and it is getting damaged day by day. The complainant has asserted in his complaint that the due to the negligence and deficiency of service of the O.Ps. he has been suffering mental agony, harassment apart from financial loss. 

The Complainant further stated in his complaint that on 22/06/2018 he issued a legal notice through his Counsel to the O.Ps. requesting them to take back the vehicle which was delivered to him, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice and also to exonerate him from repaying in the loan money. As the O;Ps. did not respond to the legal notice he has filed the instant complaint before the Forum claiming Rs.2,65,500/- as compensation etc. including cost of litigation. 

Hence this case. 

 

The O.P. No.1 has contested the case by filing a written statement denying any deficiency of service having been committed by them towards the Complainant. The O.P. has stated in his written objection that the complaint filed before the Forum is not maintainable  and it is liable  to be rejected U/S 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 on the ground of limitation. The complainant has admittedly got delivery of his vehicle from the O.P. Nos.2&3 on 26/07/2012 but he has filed the present complaint before the Forum on 05/09/2018 stating the ground that he had not been supplied with his chosen Jeep vehicle in stead of it the O.P. Nos. 2&3 delivered to him TATA Venture. The complainant according to the O.P. No.1 ought to have filed the complaint within 02(two) years from the cause of action which arose on 26/07/2012(date of delivery of the vehicle). So the O.P. has asserted that the complaint is barred by limitation. The O.P. further stated in his W.O. that the Complainant has been favoured with the loan as a beneficiary in order to enable him to buy the vehicle which would ply on commercial basis. So the vehicle which was provided to the Complainant was purely for commercial purpose and as such the complainant can not be considered to be a consumer and that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the Complainant and the O.Ps.  The O.P. has thus asserted in his W.O. that since the complainant does not come under the purview of “consumer” as defined U/S 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the  complaint filed by the Complainant deserves dismissal for want of jurisdiction. The O.P. further stated that the Complainant has been delivered TATA Venture as per the Quotation dated 27/05/2012 submitted by the Complainant before him  and that the Quotation had been procured by the Complainant from Niladri Motors i.e. the O.P. Nos.2 & 3.  The O.P. No.1  also stated in his Written Objection that the Complainant after taking delivery of the TATA Venture  obtained documents of his vehicle like registration, insurance, road permit etc. and  plied the vehicle on the road for about two  and half years and thereafter started to make complain about unsuitability of the vehicle. The O.P. No.1 asserted that if there was any mechanical disturbance in the vehicle, the Complainant ought to have approached the supplier of the vehicle i.e. the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 for repair / replacement. The complainant according to the O.P. No.1 has not repaid the loan amount in full and that in order to evade  repayment of the loan he has filed the complaint before the Forum raising unsustainable claim. 

The O.P. has thus prayed for dismissal of the Complaint for the interests of justice. 

The O.P. Nos.2&3 have also filed W.O. refuting the claim of the Complainant. The said O.Ps. have raised the plea that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable on the point of limitation. According to the O.Ps. the TATA Venture vehicle had been delivered to the Complainant as per the supply order issued by the O.P. No.1 to them in the name of the Complainant. At the time of delivery of the same the Complainant did not raise any objection and that he was happy to receive the vehicle from the O.Ps. The O.Ps. also stated that they have successfully complied with, served and completed supply order of the O.P. No.1 and that there was no deficiency of service on their part towards the Complainant. The O.Ps. further stated in the written objection that after getting delivery of the vehicle the Complainant neither complied with the required / stipulated conditions of service of the said vehicle nor did he contact with the O.Ps. regarding after sale service.  

The O.Ps. have accordingly prayed for rejecting the complaint. 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

    The Complainant has been examined as witness and he has submitted examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 36 documents under a FIRISTI dated 14/01/2019. The documents are marked Exhibit-I series. 

The O.P. Nos. 1,2 &3 have not adduced evidence-in-chief. They have however submitted documents. 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:

Based on the contentions raised by both the parties in their pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant the following points cropped up for determination:

(i).   Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ?

(ii).  Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

(III). Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/relief as prayed for?

5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  We have heard arguments of both sides. We have perused the pleadings of the parties , documents and evidence adduced by the Complainant. 

    We consider it proper to discuss point No.(i) which relates to the maintainability of the complaint on the point of limitation. 

    While arguing the case Learned Advocates appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1,2&3 submitted that the complaint filed by the Complainant is barred by limitation U/S 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to Learned Advocates the Complainant in his complaint at para 13 has stated that the cause of action arose on 26/07/2012 when the O.P. after putting pressure upon him had delivered the defective TATA Venture vehicle to him but admittedly the Complainant has filed the present complaint before the Forum on 05/09/2018 which is much beyond the period of limitation of 02(two) years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. Learned Advocates also argued that from the case record it is crystal clear that the Complainant has filed the complaint after 06(six) years. Moreover, the Complainant at the time of filing the complaint did not satisfy the District Forum that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation. 

    Learned Advocates have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint as it is time barred. 

    Per contra Learned Advocate appearing for the Complainant argued that as the subject vehicle which was delivered to him is / was defective from the very inception(from the day of delivery) and it still remains off road, so the period of limitation according to him is still continuing. He thus asserted that the Complaint can not be hit U/S 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

  We have considered the arguments advanced by both sides on the point No.(i).

We find force in the arguments advanced by Learned Advocates for the O.Ps. It is evident from the case record that the O.P. Nos. 2&3 had delivered TATA Venture vehicle to the Complainant on 26/07/2012 and that the Complainant took delivery of the same without any protest. Had there been any grievance about the condition of the vehicle, the Complainant would have approached either the O.P. Nos. 2&3 who delivered the vehicle or the O.P. No.1 who had sanctioned the loan for purchasing the vehicle of the complainant from the O.P. Nos.2&3. From the pleadings of the O.P. Nos.2&3 it reveals that after taking delivery of the vehicle the Complainant did not approach the O.P. Nos.2&3 with his vehicle for availing after sale service. The contentions of the Complainant that his TATA Venture vehicle is / was the defective  from the very inception (from the date of delivery) do not appear to us convincing and trustworthy. The Complainant also did not adduce any supportive document on this count.   

We further find that at para 13 of the complaint it has been stated by the complainant that the cause of action of his case arose on 26/07/2012 whereas the Complainant after consuming 06(six) years has filed the complaint before the Forum on 05/09/2018 which is in contravention of section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides the period of limitation for filing complaint to be 02(two) years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The Complainant also did not furnish any plausible explanation in his complaint showing that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint in time. 

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint filed by the Complainant is time barred U/S 24A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and that on this ground the complaint deserves dismissal which we do accordingly. We have thus decided the point No.(i) against the Complainant.

In view of the decision rendered by us on the point No.(i) we do not find it necessary to discuss about other 02(two) points. 

We accordingly dismiss the Complaint filed by the Complainant. 

There is no order as to costs. 

 

ANNOUNCED

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

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.