View 3868 Cases Against Tata Motors
View 30222 Cases Against Finance
View 30222 Cases Against Finance
View 1347 Cases Against Tata Motors Finance
Sk.Nuruddin filed a consumer case on 21 Jan 2015 against The Managing Director Tata Motors Finance Ltd. in the Jajapur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/18/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.
Present: 1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,
2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,
3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.
Dated the 21st day of January,2015.
C. C. Case No.18 of 2014
SK.Nuruddin, S/O Jainul
At. Naharapur, P.O/ P.S.Jajpur.
Dist.- Jajpur. ……………..Complainant . (Versus)
Keshari Talkies complex,99 Kharavela Nagar, unit no.3
Bhubaneswar.
2. The Manager Tata-Motors Finance Ltd, At.Chroda chhaka,
P.O/P.S. Jajpur Road, Dist.Jajpur.
……………. Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri Rakesh Mishra, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties: Sri R. Panigrhi, Sri P.K.Sahoo, Sh. B.Mallick, Sri M. Sahu
Sri P. Mishra, Advocates
Date of order : 21. 01.2015.
SHRI BIRAJA PRASAD KAR, PRESIDENT.
The factual matrix of the complainant’s case are that the complainant purchased a TATA ACE vehicle after getting it financed from the O.Ps. under Hire purchase Agreement bearing No.5000003242 dt.25.09.06. As per the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement the complainant paid all the EMIs to the O.Ps. . Though the complainant paid all the dues of the O.Ps. , but the O.Ps. refused to issue NOC in respect of hypothecated vehicle and claim more money for issuance of NOC which is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has filed this dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to issue NOC and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony ,harassment etc.
Being noticed the O.Ps. have appeared through their advocates and filed their written version refuting the allegation made in the complaint petition and inter alia pleaded that the dispute between the parties was referred to Ld arbitrator and learned arbitrator vide its award dt.02.05.2009 , awarded a sum of Rs.1,84,723/- in favour of the O.Ps. It is also pleaded that in a recent judgment passed by Hon’ble State Commission Odisha in R.P 97 of 2012 decided on 16.07.13, it was held that if the dispute have been decided by the arbitrator ,subsequent complaint is not maintainable. It is also further pleaded by the O.Ps. that as per the account statement more than Rs.111484 (Rs.31,331) towards installment and Rs.80,153.42/- towards ODC) is outstanding against the complainant till 14.05.2014. Hence only after clearance of the loan dues NOC will be issued to the complainant . There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and the C.C. Case is liable to be dismissed.
On the date of hearing we have heard the learned advocates for both the sides. Perused the record and documents available on record.
The learned counsel for the O.Ps. argued that the complainant is liable to pay the dues as per the Higher Purchase Agreement. More over an award has been passed against the complainant on 05.02.09 by the arbitrator. The complainant has field this present dispute on 25.02.14 which is, after the award is passed i.e on 05.02.09. Hence this Fora lacks jurisdiction to entertain this C.C. Case. In support of his case he had filed the photo copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission ,Odisha, Cuttack on 16.07.13 in Revision petition No.97/12. (Sangram Rout, acting as Manager representing TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD,Vrs. Niranjan Palai )
On the above pleadings we have verified the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2006(3) CPR-339-NC ( The installment Supply Ltd Vrs .Kangra Ex-serviceman Transport Co.& another) wherein it is held that:-
“ A complaint can not be decided by the Consumer Fora after an arbitration award is already passed .
Basing on the pleadings ,documents available on record, circumstances of the case and decision cited above we are of the opinion that when the dispute having been decided, award was made by the Sole Arbitrator, the subsequent C.C. Case filed by the complainant is not maintainable .
Further basing on the allegations and counter allegations of the respective parties we have verified the pleadings of the parties and accounts statement of the complainant filed by the O.Ps. On a bare perusal of the pleadings of the complainant it is revealed that the complainant alleged to have paid all the dues of the O.Ps. but the O.Ps. are claiming Rs.111484/- as arrear as on 14.05.14. This dispute between the parties prima face appeared to be a case of rendition / settlement of account. This being purely an account dispute between the parties, this Fora can not decide the same in view of the decision of our own State Commission passed in Complaint Case No.43/10 (Susanta Ku. Acharya Vrs. Magma Fin. Corp Ltd)
O R D E R
Resultantly the C. C. Case is dismissed against the O.Ps. without any costs.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of January ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Shri Pitabas Mohanty) (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar)
Member. President.
Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
(Miss Smita Ray) ( Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )
Member. President.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.