West Bengal

Siliguri

79/S/2013

SRI SHYAMAL DAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER, Fulerton India Credit Company Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

02 Apr 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 79/S/2013.                DATED : 02.04.2015.   

             

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                 : SRI SHYAMAL DAS,  

                                       S/O Sri Bijay Kumar Das,

                                       Vill.- Kadamtala near Ice Factory,

                                       P.O. – Champasari, P.S.- Pradhan Nagar,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

                                                              

O.Ps.             1.                     : THE MANAGER,

 Fulerton India Credit Company Limited,

 Sri Radha Apartment,

 Iskon Mandir Road, Siliguri,

 Dist.- Darjeeling (W.B.).

                                                               

               

                                    2.                     : THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

Fulerton India Credit Company Limited,  

Magh Tower, 3^rd Floor, Old No.307,

New No.165, Poonamallee, High Road, 

Madhura Voyal, Chennai – 600 095,

Tamilnadu.

                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                  

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Arun Mishra, Advocate.

 

FOR THE OP                                   : Sri Ashoke Kumar Singhi, Advocate.

 

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

The complainant’s case is that he purchased one motorcycle from OP No.1 and OP No.1 by taking loan from the OP No.1 under the scheme of Easy Monthly Installment of Rs.1,529/- per month and for 24 months.  But on 22.01.2013, the petitioner deposited total amount of Rs.6,072/-.

 

Contd……P/2

-:2:-

 

After that the petitioner requested the OP No.1 to return his documents, but the OP Nos.1 & 2 did not care for the first time on the plea that the matter has been sent to OP No.2.  Petitioner was informed regarding the fact by OP No.2.  The cheque no.443316 was bounced as the bank has Rs.102/- only.    The petitioner then served lawyer’s notice upon the OP Nos.1 & 2.  On account of negligence in performing the duty on the part of OPs, the petitioner suffered loss.  Hence, the complainant filed this case.  The allegation is that although four closure of loan was done the OPs did not return the documents. 

The OPs contested the case filling written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations raised by the complainant.

The positive case of the OPs is that the OPs admit that EMI cheque got bounced due to insufficient fund in the bank account of the complainant.  The OP admits the foreclosure of the loan on 22.01.2013.  OP states that as per their norms, they send cheque to the bank before 18^th of the month which was within the knowledge of the complainant.  The OP also submits that the complainant collected the permanent NOC on 07.02.2013 in respect of his loan account without raising any grievances.  The complainant also gave acknowledgement of receipt of NOC.  So, there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

Point for decision

 

1.       Whether the complainant has proved the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

 

Decision with reason

 

It is admitted fact that the complainant took loan to purchase the motorcycle.  It is also admitted that complainant made foreclosure of the

 

Contd……P/3

-:3:-

 

loan on 22.01.2013.  It is also admitted that after institution of this case, the complainant got clearance NOC from the OP No.2 because OP No.1 & 2 knew that due amount has been paid by the complainant.  Record shows that complainant got the NOC on 07.02.2013.  So, the document on record shows that complainant knew all the incidents and on 07.02.2013 he got the documents from the OPs, and other documents fails to prove that the OP’s has any deficiency of service or negligence on discharging their duties.  So, the complainant failed to prove his case.

So, after considering materials on record, and as per argument of both sides, we are of opinion that complainant fails to prove his case.

In the result, the case fails. 

Hence, it is

                        O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.79/S/2013 is dismissed on contest.

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

 

-Member-                      -Member-                          -President-