West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/2/2013

Sri Nimai Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, L & T Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Oct 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.02/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 22/10/2013                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A.Dutta. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. B. Das. Advocate.

          

Sri Nimai Pal S/o-late Ahi Pal resident of Vill & P.O.-Radhanagar, P.S.-Ghatal, Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

  The Manager, L & T Finance Ltd., Sarkar Apartment (Gr. Floor), O. T. Road, Inda, P.S.-

  Kharagpur,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur ………Op.

  This is the case of the complainant Sri Nimai Pal, in short, is that a vehicle being its registration no. RGM –No.- WB41E/2826 WAS purchased as under self-employment scheme from the Op L&T Finance Ltd.  Accordingly, a sum of Rs.11,80,000/- (Eleven lakh & eighty thousand) only was paid  to the complainant under an agreement stipulating the condition that the same should be repaid by virtue of 47 installments within the period from 30/6/2010 to 30/4/2014.  In the mean time, the complainant deposited Rs.6,39, 340/- (Six lakhs, thirty nine thousand, three hundred forty) only by 20 installments against proper receipts.  The complainant with due consent of the Op deposited further installments amounting to Rs.32,500/- (Thirty two thousand five hundred) only on 20/10/2012 and he committed that rest amounts will be paid within December.  It is alleged by the complainant that even thereafter on 6/11/2012 the Op without due notice or any lawful order forcibly took possession of the said vehicle.  Immediately, thereafter the complainant on 8/11/2012 deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only with an assurance that the Op-L&T Finance may make delivery of the possession in respect of the said vehicle in favour of the complainant.  On the contrary, the Op may sell out of the vehicle and accordingly they took a decision.  On that basis the Op has allegedly claimed Rs.10,30,305/-(ten lakhs, thirty thousand, three hundred five) only  on account of repossession and Rs.13,436/- (Thirteen thousand, four hundred thirty six) only

Contd……………….P/2

 

                                                                                                         - ( 2 ) -

on account of parking charge in respect of the said vehicle.  Stating the case the complainant has come before us with specific prayer for repossession and payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh) on account of harassment.

     Op-L&T Finance Ltd. contested the case by filing W/O claiming that the case is not maintainable in law.  Apart from that, the complainant is not a consumer under the present law.  Rather the complainant has suppressed the material fact and circumstances and thereby trying to miss-lead the Forum for the purpose of wrongful gain.  Thus the case should be dismissed with cost.

Decision with reasons

     After careful consideration of the case of both parties together with the documents namely Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement signed by both parties on 31/05/2010 being its no.OCV017138R1000251047 and Certified copy of Award dated 9/10/2012, it appears that for the purpose of recovery of dues, the vehicle in question was repossessed by the Op L&T Finance Ltd. under the direction of the Award.  Here in this case, the complainant has not necessarily disclosed the fact of such legal process by virtue of Award that has been passed in favour of the Op L&T Finance Ltd. According to the said Award the Ops. are entitled to possession of the vehicle.  In this connection, the complainant has been directed for surrendering the possession of the said vehicle in favour of the Op.  The Ops. were also given liberty to dispose of the vehicle for the purpose of recovery of their dues by virtue of the award.  Needless to discuss any further in this aspect, but to dismiss the claim of the complainant.

     Upon the discussion and observation made here in above, there is no case in favour of the complainant and as such the case should fail.

       Hence,

                   It is ordered,

                                          that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost. 

Dic. & Corrected by me

             

         President                                             Member                                                President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.