DATE OF FILING- 15.2.2007
DATE OF DISPOSAL-12.3.2014
O R D E R
Dr.N.Tuna Sahu,Member
The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that he had purchased a goods carrying pick-up van of make ARJUN-500 bearing Engine No.A4B26584 and Chassis No.AM/2004/B-00604 through Opposite Party No.2 under financial assistance from Opposite Party No.1 on payment of Rs.1,92,000/- on 10.9.2004. The monthly installment was fixed at Rs.5,700/- for 36 months. He had paid an initial deposit of Rs.50,300/- to the Opposite Party No.1. It is alleged by the complainant that Opposite Party No.2 was acting as the local agent-cum-dealer of Opposite Party No.1, who was running a show room namely M/s.Mahalaxmi Motors at Haladiapadar,
Berhampur. The Opposite Party No.3 was the Development-cum-Field Officer of Opposite Party No.1. After possession of the vehicle he registered the vehicle with R.T.O.,Ganjam bearing Regn.No.OR-07-K-1781 on payment of Rs.3000/-. After purchase of the vehicle, the complainant could not ply it on the road due to several problems perceived in the said vehicle. He time and again repaired the vehicle through Opposite Party No.2, but the problem could not be rectified. The complainant further alleges that due to various problems in the vehicle, the purpose for which he had purchased the vehicle was not fruitful, he therefore,surrendered the vehicle to Opposite Party No.2 in the second week of April,2005. On 15.9.2005, the Opposite Party No.1 issued a letter to the complainant insisting therein for one time settlement of the hypothecated dues in respect of the said vehicle without taking into consideration the loss and harassment sustained by him. It is, thus, claimed by the complainant that for getting possession of the vehicle he has to pay Rs.50,300/ to O.P.No.1 and after getting possession he has paid Rs.22,800/- towards hire charges and for registration he has paid Rs.3,000/-. Besides the above, he has sustained a loss of Rs.15,000/- for engaging a driver to ply the vehicle for about six months and his income to the tune of Rs.8000/-p.m which he anticipated, if the vehicle would have run on the road, was defeated. By this way he has claimed a sum of Rs.1,30,400/- from Opposite Party No.1 to 3 together with interest thereof at the rate of 12% p.a. from 8.4.2005 and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss, damage, mental agony and harassment sustained by him due to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party Nos.1,2 and 3. In support of his case, the complainant has filed certain documents which are numbered as Doc-1 to 8 respectively.
2- The Opposite Party Nos.1&2 entered appearance through their learned counsel and filed the written versions. The Opposite Party No.3 did not appear and he was set ex-parte on 3.5.2011. The Opposite Party No.4 put its appearance through learned counsel and preferred not to file written version.
3- The Opposite Party No.1 in his written version has prima-facie raised objection regarding maintainability of the case on the ground of jurisdiction. It is contended that the complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 executed a Hire Purchase Agreement on 2.9.2004 and as per the agreement any suit can be made within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi only. However, on the merit of the instant disputed case, the Opposite Party No.1 has submitted that the complainant through Opposite Party No.2 approached for a vehicle on hire purchase basis. The Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant, accordingly, entered into an Hire Purchase Agreement on 2.9.2004 and the Opposite Party No.4 was stood as guarantor of the complainant. He was financed to purchase a new ARJUN make 2004 model goods carrier bearing Engine No.A4G5226 and Chassis No.AM/2004F/00734. The complainant was liable to pay to Opposite Party No.1 a sum of Rs.2,05,606/- in 36 installments . The first installment was fixed at Rs.6,106 and the balance 35 installments were fixed at Rs.5,700/-. The above Rs.2,205,606/- included a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- towards the amount financed for the purchase of the vehicle,Rs.43,200/- towards hire charges and Rs.14,000/- towards insurance premium for the 2nd and 3rd years and Rs.4,406/- towards service tax. It is denied the allegations of the complainant that the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 are local agents of Opposite Party No.1. The complainant at his own will has made payment of Rs.48,000/- on 23.8.2004 as part payment towards purchase of the vehicle. It is admitted by Opp.Party No.1 that he has received Rs.8,412/- at the time of entering into the Hire Purchase Agreement on account of first year’s insurance of the said vehicle and documentation charges. Besides, it is admitted to have received Rs.11,400/- towards hire charges. But it is denied to have received Rs.22,800/- through O.P.No.2 towards hire charges. It is also resisted and denied the allegation of the complainant that O.P.No.1 had authorized Mr.Ranjit Pattnaik or Mr.C.P.Jena( O.P.No.2 & 3) to collect Rs.50,300/- for delivery of the disputed vehicle. Rather, it is stated that he has made payment of the balance amount of Rs.48,000/- paid by the complainant to the Opp.Party No.2, with a direction to deliver the vehicle to the complainant on 2.9.2004. It is further contended that the defects in the vehicle is the look out of the manufacturer of the vehicle and there is no concern of the Opp.Party No.1 for the allegation of defects in the vehicle. It is also denied to have received the vehicle as returned by the complainant to Opposite Party No.2. Under these circumstances, the Opposite Party No.1 has contended that there is no negligence in duties or deficiency in service on its part while granting financial assistance to the complainant and the complainant is also defaulted in repayment of hire purchase dues for which the case against him is to be dismissed. In support of its case the Opp.Party No.1 has filed an accounts statement in respect of hire purchase loan and dues thereof pertaining to the complainant.
The Opposite Party No.2 in its written version has stated that he was the dealer under Opposite Party No.1 and he used to provide service . It is admitted that whenever the complainant brought the vehicle, he was given proper service and repaired the vehicle as required. It is further submitted that the complainant in the 2nd week of April,2005 brought the vehicle to his service center and pleaded that the vehicle is not running well. Although there was no defect in the vehicle, he at his own will left the vehicle at the service centre. The Opp.Party No.2 submitted that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on its part for which the case is liable to be dismissed against him.
4- On the date of hearing both the parties are found absent on call despite several dates are given to file written arguments and to be present for arguments. Since the instant case pertaining to the year 2007, we are not in a position to linger the case any further and the case is taken up on merit U/s.13(2)c) of C.P.Act,1986 taking into consideration the complaint petition filed by the complainant and the written version filed by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2. We have gone through the case of the complainant in detail and perused the documents filed in support of his case. At the same time we have also perused the written version filed by the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 and the documents relied on and filed on record. We have also perused the written notes of arguments filed by the complainant as well as the Opposite Party No.1 . From the facts of the case, prima-facie, it reveals that the dispute has been arisen out of a Hire Purchase Agreement made between the complainant and the Opposite Party No.1. In fact, the complainant had purchased a Goods carrier vehicle viz.Arjun-500 bearing Engine No.A4B 26584 and Chassis No. AM/2004/B-00604 for earning his livelihood on hire basis being financed by Opposite Party No.1 on payment of Rs.1,92,000/- being the cost of the vehicle on 1.9.2004 from Mahalaxmi Motors, Berhampur. He had paid the initial payment of Rs.50,300/- to the Opp.Party No.1 and the installment was fixed at Rs.5,700/- p.m. for 36 installments. It is the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle was giving trouble for which he could not able it to ply on the road for which he had to sustain financial loss for keeping the vehicle idle for about 6 months . On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.2 being the authorized service centre has contended that whenever the vehicle was brought to his service centre, the same was repaired and extended proper service to the vehicle . It is also stated by the Opp.Party No.2 that the vehicle was well in condition . It is the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 that the complainant was defaulter in payment of monthly installment. It is further stated by the complainant that due to frequent trouble in the vehicle, he left the vehicle at the service station of Opposite Party No.2.
5- From the above pleadings of the parties, it is crystal clear that there is no allegation against the Opposite Party No.1 for deviation in sanction of loan amount or collection of excess installment,etc. The main allegation of the complainant is about the defect in the vehicle as purchased by him. Though the complainant has not given the details of the manufacturer of the vehicle in question in his petition of complainant, but while going through the copy of Certificate of Registration of the vehicle in question, we could arrive that maker’s name is Arjun Motors Pvt.Ltd. The maker of the vehicle would have the right party who is answerable to the defective in the vehicle. But the complainant has not made a party to the manufacturer of the vehicle or no communication is made to the manufacturer about the defective in the vehicle. Under these circumstance, it would be prejudiced if the local dealer or seller of the vehicle would be put into liability for the defect in the vehicle. Because the local dealer has been appointed to sell the vehicle of the manufacturer and to provide service to the vehicle. No allegation against the Opposite Party No.2 for discharging his obligation who seemed to be an authorized service centre.
6- Moreover, it is revealed that the present dispute arises out of the Hire Purchase Agreement which is based on several terms and conditions to be adhered to by both the parties. Any lapses from any of the parties are to be proceeded through suit in a Civil Court. We also find that various law and facts involved in the present dispute. The complainant has said to have surrendered the vehicle before the Opp.Party No.2 and it is not clear what made him to surrender the vehicle with Opp.Party No.2 . Now the position of the vehicle is also not known to us. Besides the above, there is a dispute that the Opposite Party No.1 has denied that he has not appointed Opp.Party No.2 as his Agent as alleged by the complainant. No supported document is filed in this regard before us. Under such circumstances, we are of considered view that this is a case which is complex in nature because it requires detail examination of numerous documents and witnesses for which we are not inclined to interfere in the matter of Hire Purchase Agreement made between the parties. Moreover, due to non-joinder of necessary party this case is not tenable before this Forum.
7- In the result, we do not find any merit in the present case. Hence, the instant case stands dismissed . However, before concluding, we make it clear that this order will not prejudice and debar the complainant to prefer his claim before the Civil Court of Law or any other appropriate Court of Law, if he so desires. Parties are to bear their own cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 12th March,2014
(Mrs.M.Pradhan) (Dr.N.Tuna Sahu)
I AGREE(MEMBER) (MEMBER)
