FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI REYAZUDDIN KHAN,MEMBER
This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant No.1 had purchased one repossessed private vehicle Tata Indigo Manza Qjet Aura Plus 1248CC having registration No. JH01M2918 for which she entered into a loan agreement with the OPs bearing No. WNM01091C dated 30.11.2012 from the Indusind Bank Ltd.The said OP2 issued a sale letter dated 01.04.2013.The repossessed car was previously in the name of the owner one Mr Goutam Pandey of Jharkhand state who failed to repay the loan amount and the OPs have taken the possession of the vehicle.The OP2 granted the loan amount Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees four Lakh) only to be repaid in 46 EMIs payable on and from 07.01.2013 to 07.10.2016 @ Rs.16,700/- ( Sixteen thousand seven hundred)only for 01 to 04 installments and also 05 to 45 installments was to be paid in amount of Rs12,700/ and for 46th installment she has to be paid Rs,12,500(Rupees twelve thousand five hundred)only. At the time of purchased of the vehicle the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000( Rupees One Lakh) 50,000/ against the receipt and in the name of previous owner Goutam Kumar Pandey on 31.11.2012 and rest amount of Rs.50,000/ for which receipt was not issued by Mr Sourish Sen was then Branch Manager of Indusind Bank Ltd.Malda Branch by showing different excuses. The complainant further stated that the documents related to the vehicle viz,RC Book,Insurance,RTO ownership changing papers have never handed over to the complainant rather informed that those papers are given to RTO for change of ownership.Due non availability of papers the complainant was unable to run the vehicle on road and had paid a good amount of money for keeping the vehicle on a rented garage.As the relevant papers of the vehicle not received the complainant intentionally missed the EMIs of the loan for which she approached several times to the then Manager of the Bank Mr Sourish Sen and asked for the return of the said vehicle and discharge the EMIs of the loan obligation but he assured that registration is under process.In relation of the matter the OPs initiated one arbitration proceeding at Chennai being no. IND/SP/933 of 2014 and the same held ex-parte against the complainant. as the complainant was unable to attend at Chennai.The complainant further stated that when the complainant visited the bank to meet with Mr Sourish Sen it was informed that he left the job and the new manager was not agreed to talk with the complainant in that matter.
On 17.07.2019 the complainant received a letter from OP1 regarding the Bank due loan amount of Rs,16,51,840/ out of the Principal amount of Rs,4 lakh.In this regard the OPs started a criminal case before the 7th M.M at Calcutta Case No.CS/40327/19 charge u/s 420/406/506/120B I.P.C and same was pending before the Ld.court.The complainant further said that the vehicle which was sold by the OP 2 through issue a sale letter dated 01.04.2013 vehicle No.JH01-M2918 was the No.of a two wheeler motorbike and not a four wheeler that was recorded in Jharkhand Govt.web site and its owner Chandrakanta Munda, Ranchi Jharkhand.The vehicle which was actually handed over to the complainant No.1 by the OP No.2 vehicle bearing registration no.is JH01AT2918 Manza Elan Qjet BS IV is in the name of Owner Gautam Kumar Pandey,Jharkhand. This is a complete unfair trade practice by the OPs and they have caused harassment and agony,mal- practice,manipulation in the sale and finance of the vehicle to the complainant. The cause of action first arose on 17.07.2019 when the complainant received a letter from Mr Ayan Chakarborty Advocate of Indusind Bank Ltd. The cause of action was continuing since the OPs are frequently calling the complainant for repayment of loan. lastly on 09.12.2019 issued a letter by the OPs. Under the said circumstances, the complainant has been forced to file the complaint against the OPs to this commission with the relief/reliefs as detailed in the complaint petition.
The OPs have contested the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the present complaint is vexatious,speculative,harassing,malafide, misconceived and is not maintainable and has no cause of action against the opposite parties as alleged in the complainant petition.
The OPs have stated that The vehicle in question “TATA INDIGO MANZA” Engine No.101A20000130961 Chasis No.MAT613053BALA01912 was taken possession from one Mr Goutam Kumar Pandey who failed to repay loan sanctioned against him.The complainant purchased the reposed vehicle with the financial assistance from Bank.The complainant became satisfied after going through the terms and conditions of the loan facility and availed the loan of Rs,4,00,000/ (Rupees Four Lakhs) only by a loan agreement no.WNM01091C on 30.11.2012.to be paid in 46 installments starting from 07/01/2013 to 07/10/2016.The OPs have taken appropriate step to get the name transfer of the vehicle from the previous owner to the present complainant. The complainant without paying a single loan amount enjoying the vehicle from 2012.As the loan agreement contained the Arbitration clause the OPs have referred the matter and the arbitrator passed the award in favour of the OPs on 27.04.2015.The OPs have also mentioned that once any dispute already adjudicated before the arbitral tribunal then consumer forum lacks its jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes once again.It is also mentioned by the OPs that this complaint is barred by limitation. The OPs stated that the complainants offering to take back the vehicles after 7 years of enjoyments where the OPs have suffered financial loss and the complainant also demands compensation from the OPs.The complainants said that in the complaint case that the vehicle class is m-cycle/scooter (2WN) a two wheeler motor bike which is total false and frivolous.
Points for Determination
In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.
1) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant?
2) Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?
3) Whether the complainants is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Point Nos. 1 to 3 :-
The above mentioned points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
We have travelled over the documents placed on record. The complainants and the OPs have filed their Evidences supported by affidavit.. Both parties have submitted their BNAs.
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant No.1 purchased one repossessed private vehicle Tata Indigo Manza Qjet Aura Plus 1248CC having registration No. JH01M2918 for which she entered into a loan agreement with the OPs bearing No. WNM01091C dated 30.11.2012.The Complainant purchased the said car from the OPs by executed a loan of Rs.4,00,000( Rupees Four Lakhs) vide agreement No.WNM01091C dated 30.11.2012.The loan amount required to be paid in 46 installments with a monthly EMIs of Rs,16700/- 1st four installments and 12,500/- 5th to 45th installments. As per the complainant he has paid Rs.1 Lakh but as per the documents a receipt of only Rs,50,000/ annexed with the petition rest Rs,50,000/- amount was very cunningly suppressed by the OP Bank . As per the certificate by the OP Bank dated 01.04.2013 the repossessed vehicle was sold to the complainant No.1 which was taken from Mr Goutam Pandey the defaulter of the financed vehicle JH01M-2918TATA MANZA and the documents of the same have been given to RTO for change of ownership but in that certificate the price of the repossessed vehicle not mentioned which raises the question and intention of the OP Bank.Later,as per the complainants the documents have never been handed over to the complainant by the concerned Manager of the Bank. The complainant did not pay a single amount against their loan of Rs 4 lakhs.The complainant mentioned that though not a single document of the vehicle was handed over to the complainant till now the complainant No.1 was unable to run the vehicle on road and they spend a good amount of money to keeping safe the vehicle in a rented garage.No documents as evidence annexed which shows that vehicle’s papers were handed over to the complainant or submitted in RTO office for name transfer.The OPs referred the matter to the arbitrator in Chennai on 27th April 2015 and the Ld. Arbitrator passed the award in favour of the OPs no.1 and 2 but the complainant denied that no copy of such application and award being served. There is no whisper in the WV of the OPs that the complainant have not complied the Arbitrator’s award.OPs advocate”s letter dated 17.07.2019 mentioned that the total amount stands Rs,16,51,840/- out of Principal loan amount of Rs,4,00,000/ only against the vehicle bearing registration no.JH01M2918 and on non payment of such amount the OPs started a criminal case against the complainant before the 7th M.M Calcutta Case No.CS/40327/19 charge u/s 420/406/506/120B IPC ,the complainant got the bail and later, the same was dismissed by the learned court for lack of participation in proceedings by the OPs.Further, the complainant stated and supported by the evidence the vehicle which was purchased from the OPs No.2 through a sale letter dated 01.04.2013 and related to that one finance agreement was executed of Rs,4,00,000/-by vehicle no.JH01-M2918 is actually a two wheeler motorbike and not a four wheeler and is recorded in the name of owner Chandrakant Munda,Ranchi,Jharkhand.The vehicle bearing registration no.JH01AT2918 Manza Elan Qjet BS IV is in the name of owner Gautam Kumar Pandey,Jharkhand.This fact has come to the notice of the complainant from the Jharkhand Government’s motor vehicles website.This is an unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.This is a stated fact that without authentic and important documents a person cannot use the vehicle on road.The stand taken by the OPs is not justified. . It is absolutely whimsical and suffer from the latches of one sidedness. In view of the facts stated above we are of the opinion that the complainants have been able to make out the case against the OPs and accordingly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP have been established.
In the result, the consumer complaint succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs and dismissed with the following directions.
1. The Complainant is directed to return the Vehicle as it is, to the OPs within 6 weeks and OPs to accept the same.
2. The OPs are further directed jointly or severely to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
3.The OPs are further directed jointly or severely to relieve the complainant from the burden of impugned loan agreement dated 30.11.2012 .
The above orders are to be complied by the OPs within a period of 60 days from the date of this order. In default, the complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution.
Copy of the judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost as per the C.P. Act and Judgment be uploaded in the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.
