THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

 

CASE No. CC- 73 of 2019

 

 

 

Sri Babul Roy,

C/O- Bishnupada Roy,

291 Basanti Tilla, Chebri,

P.S. Khowai, Dist. Khowai Tripura,

 

Presently residing at 

Shubhashnagar, Jagat Palli,

Near Ration shop,

P.S. East Agartala,

Dist. West Tripura. ...….................Complainant.

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

1. The Manager, 

    Tata Motors Finance Limited Company,

1st floor, 87, HGB Road, Melarmath,

Opp. of Madan Mohan Mandir, Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Triprua-799001.

 

 

2. The Chief Managing Director,

Tata Motors Finance Limited Company,

3rd Floor, Hasna Bahani Furnishing Building,

Opp. Of Super Market Traffic Point, Dishpur,

Guwahati, Assam-781006. ..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Debal Saha, 

  Mr. Kumar Sankar Sarma, 

  Mr. Mridul Kanti Arya,

  Learned Advocates.

    

For the O.Ps : Mr. Swarup Pandit, 

  Mr. Alak Datta, 

  Mr. Maloy Debnath, 

  Mr. Nabajit Kr. Biswas,

  Learned Advocates.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON  : 14.07.2021

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant's case in short is that the  complainant purchased a pick vehicle(ACE HT BS IV HD) bearing registration no- TR 0161766, vide chasis no- MAT445064GYB03146, Engine no. 275IDI06BTYS24501 and he is the registered owner of the said vehicle. He purchased the said vehicle through Tata Motors finance company Ltd. and one contract vide no.5002060214 dated 27.06.2016 was made between the complainant and the O.Ps. Monthly installment was Rs.12,800/-  according to the said contract and total number of installment were 36 nos. Complainant regularly paid the installment. Then on 22.03.2019 the O.P. No.1 suddenly illegally took the vehicle from the possession of the complainant through recovery agency and kept the said vehicle under the custody of the O.P. No.1. There after the O.P no.1 without giving any notice to the complainant illegally sold out the vehicle. It is stated by the complainant that as per contract made between the complainant and the O.Ps  the maturity date was on 02.06.2019. Complainant also sent one notice through his engaged counsel requesting the O.P. No.1 to hand over the vehicle along with clearance certificate but the O.Ps did not hand over the vehicle  to the complainant nor pay any heed to it. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission against the O.Ps claiming Rs. 7,78,021/- with 9% interest for deficiency of service , mental agony & suffering loss of income etc. Hence, this case.

 

2. On the other hand it has been revealed from the written statement submitted by the O.P. No.1 and 2 that the complainant was very much irregular in making payment of the monthly installment. As per loan agreement complainant is to make payment by 35 installment equated monthly installments(EMIs) each amounting to Rs.12800/-. The first EMI was Rs.12,821/- only. The total amount to be repaid with interest was Rs.4,48,021/-. The very first installment was paid after delay of 18 days, similarly the second installment was paid after the delay of 60 days. Thus, complainant was very much irregular in making EMI payment since the very beginning of the contract and there was delay in every monthly of EMI payment. As a result on 02.05.2018 over due of Rs.48,287/-. Subsequently his over due dated 02.06.2018, 02.10.2018 and 02.03.2019 were Rs.50,131/-, Rs.50,8787/- and Rs.47,643/- respectively. Due to delayed payment of EMI a huge over due charges of Rs.26,973/- accrued in his loan account until last payment on 19.03.2018. It is stated that there was a provision in the agreement that to recover dues O.Ps have to refer the matter to the arbitrator by invoking arbitration clause of the loan agreement. The learned arbitrator vide order dated 23.10.2017 passed an interim order for taking possession of the vehicle from the customer and subsequently vide award dated 04.01.2018 concluded  the arbitration proceeding with direction to pay Rs.2,54,296/- along with 18% interest till realization. Learned arbitrator further pleased to pass direction for repossession of the vehicle and to sell the same for recoveries of the dues. Accordingly the O.Ps in complete adherence to the award passed by the learned arbitrator, after making pre-intimation to police repossessed  the vehicle on 25.03.2019 and immediately thereafter made post repossession intimation also. The O.P. thereafter gave ample opportunity to the complainant for making payment of total outstanding amount and to get release of the vehicle but the complainant never responded and after waiting for a month the vehicle was sold on auction on  20.04.2019 for Rs.1,12,000/-. After making of adjustment the excess amount of Rs.9,628/- was refunded to the complainant vide cheque no- 289902. In their written statement O.Ps also challenged the maintainability of the proceeding.

 

 

3. From the record it appears that the case was proceeded exparte against the O.P. No.1 vide order dated 12.03.2020. on 20.03.2020 the O.P. filed written statement,  but my predecessor did not accept the same on the ground that the period of 45 days   expired. Thereafter O.Ps preferred appeal before the Hon'ble state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for setting aside the exparte order. Hon'ble State Commission disposed of the appeal being no- 1st Appeal no- A/I/2001 vide order dated 9th February 2021 giving opportunity to the O.P.s to argue the case on the question of maintainability of the complaint petition before this commission. Giving this direction appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.

 

4. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

The complainant adduced his examination in chief on affidavit and also exhibited the documents i.e., registration (Smart Card), Insurance Certificate of the vehicle, Legal notice, which are marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. Since proceeding was exparte the O.Ps did not get chance for adducing evidence. 

 

5. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(i) Whether the proceeding is maintainable in law?

(ii) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

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

 

6. ARGUMENTS: - 

On the date of argument counsel of the O.P. also remained absent. Learned counsel of the complainant submitted his written argument. At the time of arguments Mr. Debal Saha for the complainant submitted that the O.Ps illegally seized the vehicle and sold the vehicle on auction inspite of making payment of the loan regularly. The action of the O.P. is most illegal and the complainant is entitled to get compensation for their misdeeds.

 

 

  

7. FINDINGS-

                     All the points are taken up together for convenience. In the instant case though the O.Ps did not adduce their evidence but Hon'ble State Commission gave them opportunity to raise the question of maintainability of the proceeding. We have meticulously gone through the complaint and the documents submitted from both sides. On perusal of the complaint as well as the documents i.e., Exhibit- 1 Series, we do not find any accounts in details regarding how much money/installments were given by the complainant against the loan account. At para- 2 of the complaint, the complainant mentioned that he purchased the vehicle through Tata Motors Finance Co. Ltd. vide contract no- 5002060214 dated 27.06.2016 and according to the said contract monthly installment was Rs.12,800/-per month and total no. of installment were 36 nos. But from the written statement we find that the first installment was Rs.12,821/- and there was repayment schedule in 35 equated monthly installment each amounting to Rs.12,800/-. So it is very much clear that the complainant could not ventilate the actual facts. At para- 3 of the complaint it is mentioned that on 22.03.2019 the O.P. No.1 suddenly and illegally took the vehicle of the complainant from the possession of the complainant through recovery agency. The complainant no where in the complaint mentioned about the arbitration clause as well as arbitration proceeding. We also do not find how much amount was paid by the complainant against the loan account. Complainant also failed to adduce any documentary evidence. The documentary evidence which are exhibited are not relating to the payment of the loan. The documents are xerox copy of  Registration(Smart Card), xerox copy of Insurance Certificate of the vehicle, xerox copy of the legal notice. None of the documents are regarding to payment of loan. So, we are in the opinion that this proceeding is not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause as per agreement. Moreover, complainant also failed to make out any case in favour of him. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. 

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of costs.

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.