Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he booked a TATA Nano Car vide Unique Identification No. 110749271 as per SBI Nano Car Booking Funding Scheme (S.N.B.F. Loan) through State Bank of India, Wellesley Park Branch, Kolkata – 700016 and as per allotment letter dated 23.06.2009 complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,999/- to State Bank of India, Wellesley Park Branch, Kolkata-16 towards booking but complainant has not been informed about recovery of EMI and not intimated about delivery of the car or the schedule of delivery of the car.  But without receiving the car by the complainant the said op/SBI started recovering  at the rate Rs. 3,577/- from complainant’s account as EMI and 17 times EMI i.e. total Rs. 60,809/- was recovered from Savings A/C No. 10051554035 and when complainant came to know about this recovery of money without getting car immediately complained to the Bank and stopped EMI Recovery and Bank had stopped deducting money.

          Immediately after knowing the above deduction complainant cancelled this booking of car vide Ref. No. JE10Z-94887 dated 10.11.2010 and requested to refund the deducted money and complainant also asked to get back the recovered money and bank refunded Rs. 35,695/- out of Rs. 60,809/- without booking amount of Rs. 3,999/- and that booking amount of Rs. 3,999/- was paid by the complainant at the time of booking that is other than EMI amount of Rs. 60,809/- paid.  So the complainant asked SBI for balance unpaid amount of Rs. 25,114/- many times from the date of cancellation of car and non-receipt of delivery of the car.  But op/Bank did not pay any heed and thereafter complainant sent a registered letter with A/D on 01.10.2012 which was received by SBI, Wellesley Park Branch, Kolkata-16 on 03.10.2012 and in reply the bank refused to refund the same vide their letter BR/GEN/41/235 dated 21.05.2013 and in the above circumstances complainant has prayed for proper redressal against the op.

          On the other hand op State Bank of India by filing this written statement submitted that the present complaint is vexatious and is not maintainable and further submitted that complainant applied for loan on 07.10.2009 and after receiving the application on 09.10.2009 Bank issued term loan of Rs. 1,74,000/- in favour of the complainant borrower and as per terms of the agreement complainant authorized the bank to deduct the sum of Rs. 3,577/-  per month as EMI and this is worthwhile to mention that the scope an ambit of the Bank is to sanction of loan only and delivery of car to the complainant is the duty of car dealer and on receipt of the loan agreement as on 30.06.2011, the outstanding of the loan account was Rs. 1,04,305/- and after considering the repayment amount of Rs. 60,809/- and bank closed the account and balance amount of Rs. 35,695/- has been credited to the S/B No.10051554035 to Sri Dutta and save and except the ops no.1 has no liability and further it is submitted that as per terms of agreement the complainant is liable to pay EMI and the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be rejected and ins not tenable in view of the fact that there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op and so complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

          On the other hand op no.2 TATA Motors by filing this written version has submitted that complainant has admitted in para-2 of the complaint that the car has been booked on hire purchase from SBI op no.1 in which the complainant claimed that the periodical installments was  at the rate Rs. 3,577/- per month and in total the complainant claimed to have paid 17 installments which is equivalent to Rs. 60,809/- to SBI and since no car was delivered or purchased by the complainant in the instant case as such he is not a consumer as against this op no.2 and has no locus standi to file the complaint.  So, the complaint should be dismissed.

          Further it is submitted that as per understanding in between complainant and SBI the full value of the car will be transferred to TML i.e. op no.2, by SBI whenever any customer books any car for the concerned customer.  In case the concerned customer’s name did not feature in the list of successful customers eligible for receiving the car, in that case, the money as received from SBI or any other bank shall be refunded to the concerned Bank, in this case a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- was refunded to SBI.  With reference to para-3 of the complaint op no.2 denied the allegation and disputes and also submitted that in case of any of the customer’s name appears in the first successful list of Nano car as intending purchaser in that case he or she was communicated through letter as well as the Bank was intimated about the same.  From the letter dated 25.03.2011 issued to M/s K.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. by the complainant it appears that the complainant himself cancelled the booking as on 05.04.2011 and the recovery of EMI is strictly in between the op no.1 and the complainant and in this particular case TML, being the op no.2 received a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- from SBI and same amount was refunded to SBI being the op no.1 which is indicated in the undated note for Regional Manager prepared by the Branch Manager of SBI Wellesley Park Branch and is a part of the instant complaint application and when the customer obtained loan from the financier it is his duty to pay the EMI and the manufacturer has no role to play in the same and in this case the complainant did not wait for his turn to receive the vehicle from the op no.2 but decided to cancel the booking of the Nano car as on 05.04.2010 as mentioned in the letter dated 25.03.2011.

          Moreover the entire booking amount has been taken by SBI and no money was received by TML, save and except the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- which was paid to TML after the booking of the car by the complainant and the said sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- was also refunded to SBI by TML.  So op no.2 has no liability and in the above circumstances the present complaint against op no.2 should be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          On proper study of the complaint and also written version of op nos. 1 & 2 and further relying upon the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties including the document as filed by the complainant it is undisputed fact that SBI, Wellesley Park Branch linked with SNBF (SBI Nano Car Booking Funding Scheme) and purpose of loan was for booking the TATA Nano car as per that scheme and for booking such Nano Car there are SNBF scheme as vended by the SBI Wellesley Park Branch, complainant was directed by the said op/Bank to deposit of Rs. 3,999/- as booking amount in advance for disbursing the sanctioned loan amount.  So, it is clear that the complainant practically applied for the said scheme and his application was accepted and SBI SNBF loan for Rs. 1,40,000/- was sanctioned and fact remains the entire arrangement is made by the Bank for purchasing the said TATA Nano car and all processes were made through bank because it was the scheme of SBI Wellesley Park Branch for SNBF car booking scheme.  So, it is clear the it is not a mere prayer for granting loan to the bank but the entire scheme was propagated by the op no.2 bank and complainant after observing that scheme as propagatedby op no.1 applied for loan.  Subsequently complainant got unique identification number 110749271 and as per allotment letter dated 23.06.2009 complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,999/- to SBI op no.1 towards booking advance.  Thereafter complainant was not informed about what the entire process or arrangement has been made by the op no.1 in respect of SBNF Nano Car Booking Funding Scheme.

          But truth is that complainant did not get the said car as yet.  But op bank deducted 17 EMIs  at the rate Rs. 35,777/- that is total sum of Rs. 60,709/- from SB A/C No.100515540395.  Moreover from the letter dated 23.06.2009 issued by TATA Motors Ltd. it is clear that op no.2 by that letter informed the complainant and the bank that the Nano Yellow shall be delivered through K.B. Motors, Kolkata and practically on 05.04.2010 complainant prayed for cancellation of the said booking of the car and reported to bank and K.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd.  But actual prospective delivery date was too late for which before the complainant cancelled the same.  But the fact remains that before delivery of the car, op no.1 deposited Rs. 1,40,000/- to the op no.2 but that was not reported to the complainant which is proved.

          Another factor is that the entire scheme was propagated by the bank op no.1.  So, it was the duty of op no.1 to satisfy that the car was ready for delivery and in that case op no.1 may deposit the entire amount of the car of Rs. 1,40,000/- but without considering of the above fact he deposited the amount.

          Most interesting factor is that op no.1 has reported in their evidence and written statement that Rs. 1,74,000/- was issued as loan in favour of the complainant but it is not a fact because it is proved from the evidence and written statement of op no.1.  So, the story of Rs. 1,74,000/- by the ops is completely false and fabricated.  Moreover op no.2 has not stated in their evidence or written statement that on which date Rs. 1,40,000/- was deposited to the op no.2 for such Nano car and it was not also reported by the op no.1 to the complainant.

          Fact remains that complainant cancelled the same on 05.04.2010.  Even after 05.04.2010 there was no scope on the part of the op no.1 to deduct any EMI and op no.1 had no legal authority to disburse the money without keeping such information about the particular date of delivery of the car.  But in the present case there was an agreement in between the op nos. 1 & 2 for which before the date of delivery of TATA Nano car in favour of the complainant from K.B. Motors by the op no.2, op no.1 deposited the entire amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- to op no.2 and no doubt it is completely an unfair trade practice on the part of the bank and it is mandatory provision of law that loan amount shall be disbursed to the seller on the very date of delivery of the car to the lonee member.

          But in this case that procedure had not been followed by the op no.1 but op no.1 began to deduct EMI and that was not reported to the complainant which is also an unfair trade practice on the part of the bank authority and in this case bank authority without any reasons and legal validity handed over a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- to the op no.1 without getting such information by the bank that on such particular date, the car shall be delivered.  So op no.1 deposited the entire Rs. 1,40,000/- to op no.2 without informing the matter and consent of the complainant i.e. against the provision of law.

          Fact remains that loan shall be sanctioned in favour of complainant but the amount shall be paid to TATA Motors Ltd. without following the consent of complainant.  As because there was no alliance in amongst complainant and the op nos. 1 & 2 and op no.1 made profit bank as per ruled of the op no.2 and received the entire loan amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- without consent of the complainant that is completely deceitful manner of business on the part of the op bank and op no.2.

          Most probably op no.1 has tried to convince that as per agreement they deposited the amount to op no.2 as loan amount as because loan was granted and they deposited to op no.2 and they deducted EMIs from the complainant’s account as per letter of delivery of the op no.2 through their dealer K.B. Motors to the complainant.  But it is a game in between the op nos. 1 & 2 and op no.1 deposited the same taking on behalf of the complainant which is proved beyond any manner of doubt and it is no doubt unlawful and unfair trade practice adopted by the op no.1.  Practically op no.1 lodged the said claim that is SBI Car Booking Funding Scheme and it was lodged by op no.2.

          So, it is clear that op never sanctioned Rs. 1,74,000/-as loan amount as claimed by the op no.1 but Rs. 1,40,000/- has already been refunded to the banking authority by op no.2.  It is admitted truth is that between that periods the vehicle has not been delivered.  Then question of deducting interest cannot arise when that loan amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- was deposited by the op no.1 to op no.2 without the consent and information of the complainant and that is no doubt an unfair trade practice on the part of the ops, particularly op no.1.  It is to be mentioned in this regard that banking authority has not stated on which date they deposited the said amount.  Though they have already deducted Rs. 60,809/- from the account of the complainant as EMI against 17 EMIs which is completely unethical practice on the part of the bank.

          Fact remains interest was 8 percent p.a. only and most interesting factor is that in loan-cum-hypothecation Agreement, interest rate was only 8 percent p.a. and installment was Rs. 3,577/-.  Peculiar factor is that op no.1 has not stated on which date the entire amount was deposited by the op no.2.  But EMI was deducted from November-2009 when there was no chance delivery of the car to the complainant and it is no doubt an unfair trade practice on the part of the op when the amount was not handed over to the complainant.  But the said amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- was enjoyed by the op no.2 till its refund of the same to the bank/op no.1.

          Peculiar factor is that op no.2 has stated that they have refunded the Rs. 1,40,000/- to SBI, but the date of refund of the same to SBI is not mentioned and considering that fact it is clear that banking authority deposited the amount to the op no.2 without consent of the complainant without ascertaining the actual prospective date of delivery of the said car to the complainant.  Similarly op no.2 is very silent about enjoying of the said amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- for same period and not stated on which date they refunded the amount to op no.1.  But it is proved that complainant did not get the car.  Op no.1 deposited the amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- on behalf of the complainant to the op no.2 and op no.2 enjoyed that amount as a capital without delivering any car before the date of cancellation that is 05.04.2010.  Probably this amount was deposited by the op no.1 to op no.2 in the month of November or December 2009 and invariably after cancellation of booking on 05.04.2010 op/bank has no legal authority to deduct any further interest when complainant did not get the said vehicle he came to learn.  Then under what circumstances op no.1 got such authorization to deposit the entire amount well in advance and long prior to perspective date of delivery of the said vehicle.

          Considering all the above fact and circumstances, it is proved that unlawful business transaction in between the op nos. 1 & 2 as per their wish and desire deposited the complainant’s loan amountto the op no.2 when they failed to deliver the vehicle within desired and expected time but op no.2 has not disclosed on which date the said amount was deposited to the op no.2 and that amount was received by op no.2 from op no.1 and all those factors have given this Forum a chance that op no.1 adopted an unfair trade practice by adopting a unlawful alliance with op no.2 and entire scheme was launched by the bank with unduly alliance of the op nos. 1 & 2 only to deceive the perspective buyers like complainant.

          Truth is that in the present written statement op no.1 has tried to convince that loan was advanced on 09.10.2009 and EMIs were deducted Rs. 60,809/- but there was no scope on the part of the op no.1 to deduct it when as per their loan scheme the car was not delivered to the complainant and when in all respect banking authority was responsible for delivery of the car.  When the Nano Car Booking Funding Scheme was launched by the op no.1 and op no.1 did everything after taking the entire advance amount from the complainant.  Truth is that loan was granted to the extent of Rs. 1,40,000/- but total loan amount was shown as of Rs. 1,46,767/-.  But it is proved for the purpose of grabbing more money on calculation booking amount was not refunded to the complainant.  But op no.1 has not yet refunded it.  In fact complainant did not get the car.  So, complainant is entitled to get back the entire EMIs that is Rs. 60,809/- when the entire amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- has already been deposited by the op no.2 to op no.1.  So, interest up to 30.06.2011 was assessed to the extent of Rs. 17,566/- and invariably that amount should be deducted from the op no.2 by the op no.1 not from the complainant. 

So, in view of the above fact and circumstances we are convinced to hold that complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 25,114/- from the State Bank of India Wellesley Park Branch op no.1 and op no.2 shall pay the interest of the said amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- as already assessed by the op no.1 and op no.2 shall pay the entire interest of Rs. 1,40,000/- as deposited by the op no.1 and interest cannot be charged from the present complainant for which we are convinced to hold that complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 25,114/- the balance amount from the op no.1 and op no.1 is bound to pay the same to the complainant with interest 8 percent p.a.  and further for harassing the complainant in such a manner by the op nos. 1 & 2  and also for causing financial loss and damages to the complainant, ops shall have to pay compensation  at the rate Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.  At the same time for throwing the complainant in the Forum to contest the case and to file the case and to appoint such person for proceeding the case and for expenditure of litigation ops shall have to pay Rs. 5,000/- each to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint succeeds.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against op nos. 1 & 2 with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- each and each op shall have to pay the said cost to the complainant.

Op no.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs. 25,114/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order and op no.2 shall have to pay the total interest assessed by the bank in respect of that amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- to the op no.1 bank within 15 days from the date of this order.

Ops are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each for causing harassment, mental pain and agony and for adopting unfair trade practice to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.

For adopting unlawful alliance in between the op nos. 1 & 2 for adopting unfair trade practice and to deceive the customer like the complainant and to protect the consumers from the hands of such dishonest business men (the ops), each op shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as penal damages which shall be deposited to this Forum within 15 days and both the ops are directed to comply the Forum’s order very strictly failing which for noncompliance and disobeyance of Forum’s order penal interest  at the rate Rs. 200/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of this decree and both ops shall have to pay the same if it is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum and even if ops are reluctant to comply the order in that case penal proceeding shall be started u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed against both the ops.