In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 158 / 2006 1) Smt. Smita Basu, 38A, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) Regional Manager, ABN-AMRO Bank, 18A, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001. 2) Mr. Razza, ABN-Amro Bank, Car Loan Division, ITC Centre, Russel Street, Kolkata-700017. 3) Mr. Shiv Sagar Sarma, 1, Mumud Ghosal Lane, Kolkata-700057. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 2 8 Dated 1 0 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9 . Complainant Smita Basu on 21.6.06 filed a petition u/s 12 of the C.P. Act against the o.p. nos.1 to 3 with a prayer for issuing a direction upon the o.ps. jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.9000/- to the complainant along with compound interest of Rs.6000/- and compensation of Rs.30000/- for her mental pain and agony and for other reliefs as the forum deems fit and proper. Complainant sold one Hyundai car no.WB 02K 9968 to o.p. no.3 Shiv Sagar Sharma on 4.4.04, he took delivery by executing a delivery note and got possession over the car and on 14.4.04 complainant received Rs.130000/- from o.p. no.3 as consideration money. O.p. no.3 obtained loan from ABN AMRO Bank, Car Loan Division, ITC Centre viz. o.p. no.2. The loan amount was Rs.183000/-, disbursement amount Rs.118000/-, RTO fee Rs.3000/- and security money Rs.9000/- and this non payment of Rs.9000/- is the subject matter of this case. The complainant repeatedly request4ed o.p. nos.1 and 2 to disburse the security money of Rs.9000/-, but hey did not respond to her request. She sent a letter dt.22.12.04 and o.p. no.1 duly received the letter, but no reply was given to her. Finding no other alternative the complainant sent lawyer’s letter on 23.12.05 to o.p. no.1 requesting to pay the security money of Rs.9000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt such letter. But o.p. nos.1and 2 in collusion o.p. no.3 have not given the complainant the security money of Rs.9000/- and so she has filed this case with the aforesaid prayer. O.p. nos.1 and 2 have filed their w/v on 4.4.07. They have contended that the case is not maintainable on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer. They have stated that the loan of Rs.130000/- was disbursed in favour of the bank’s authorized used card dealer M/s. Card Dimension as choice of the o.p. no.3 Shiv Sagar Sharma. They have also denied all the material allegations against them. Their specific case is that no security deposit was held back by o.p. bank. Accordingly, they have denied non payment of alleged security money of Rs.9000/- and the transfer as dealt in was made between the borrower o.p. no.3 and the complainant. And he entire disburse of money was released to the dealer M/s Card Dimension as per request of the borrower o.p. no.3 and there was no security money involved in such transaction. O.p. no.2 was in constant contact with the complainant on the matter of security money and on the consistent approach of the complainant, o.p. no.2 has issued a letter giving the break up of the aforesaid loan amount of Rs.130000/-. And they suspect that there was an understanding between the complainant and the buyer. The security deposited according to them is the part and parcel of total sale consideration and so, the statements made by the complainant is contradictory and it has no leg to stand upon and accordingly the prayer of the complainant for paying of Rs.9000/- to the complainant by the o.ps. is a myth and so the petition of complaint is misconceived and it should be rejected. Decision with reasons : Mr. Shiv Sagar Sharma is o.p. no.3. But he has not come to contest this case although there is specific allegation against him by the complainant made out in his petition for non payment of security money of Rs.9000/- and this non payment of security money of Rs.9000/- is the subject matter of this case. And the complainant has categorically stated that all the o.p. nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally responsible for such non payment of security money of Rs.9000/-. O.p. nos.1 and 2 have contested this case. O.p. no.3 even in spite of receipt of the notice has neither appeared nor filed any w/v nor taken any step whatsoever. Delivery of car being no.WB 02K 9968 to the complainant on 14.4.04 is annex-A. Money receipt to the extent of Rs.130000/- from the complainant of the said car is annex-B. It has been categorically stated in paragraph 4 of the petition of complaint that the o.p. obtained loan from ABN AMRO Bank Car Loan Division, ITC Centre for the purchase of purchasing the vehicle in question from the complainant. And the break up account has been mentioned in the petition of complaint and out of loan amount of Rs.130000/- disbursed amount was Rs.118000/- and RTO fee was Rs.3000/- and security money was Rs.9000/-. The transfer of R.C. has been made in the name of o.p. no.3 and it is also the specific case of the complainant that he repeatedly requested o.p. no.1 and 2 to disburse the security money of Rs.9000/-, but the o.p. did not comply with his request. We have also perused the letter dt.22.12.04 addressed to Soumitra Sen, The Regional Manager of ABN AMRO Bank of 18 A Brabourne Road, Kolkata-1 by the complainant and all the allegations of the complainant have been reflected in the letter in question running page 9 and at page 10. She has categorically stated “whenever I have called Mr. Razza, he kept informing me that he is helpless and then I should take the balance payment of Rs.4000/- and this I refused to do. Since there is a written communication from ABN AMRO Bank that I should receive Rs.9000/-, why should I agree to take less and take an unfair deal ? I clearly told Mr. Razza more han a month ago that if neither Mr. Baljit nor he could help me, I would need to write the matter to higher authorities, as yourself and then resort to legal action, nor as a threat but as a need. Mr. Razza appeared non chatant and offer no remedy.” Mr. Razza is o.p. no.2. AIn the advocate’s letter running page 12 dt.23.12.05 the advocate of the complainant has demanded to pay the security money of Rs.9000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the complainant may take civil as well as criminal action and may take resort to Consumer Forum. The break up of loan has been made by the o.p. which is reflected at page 15 of the petition of complaint. We have also perused the Auto Loan Documentation, annex-A wherein the name of o.p. no.3 appears as borrower. We have also perused the examination in chief of the complainant wherein she has clearly stated that she sold Hyundai Santro car bearing no.WB 02K 9968 to o.p. no.3 and o.p. no.3 took delivery of the car on 4.4.04 by executing on delivery note and the complainant received Rs.118000/- from o.p. no.3 as consideration money and the amount of Rs.130000/- was wrongly mentioned in his petition of complaint instead of Rs.118000/-. And she is now entitled to get the security money of Rs.9000/- to be paid by the bank in her favour. We have also perused the cross examination put to the complainant on her evidence on affidavit and the replies given by the complainant against such questionnaire by o.p. no.1. On the basis of her assertion that she paid Rs.118000/- as consideration money she has become a consumer. She has also categorically replied that the bank has already disbursed an amount of Rs.118000/-, but the bank has illegally withheld the security money to the extent of Rs.9000/-. On the other hand it appears from the evidence on affidavit of Sagar Sen of the bank that the bank had disbursed the entire amount has agreed with the borrower as per loan agreement dt.23.3.04 and disbursed money in favour of the dealer viz. o.p. no.3. Admittedly, o.p. no.3 Mr. Shiv Sagar Sharma applied to the bank o.p. no.1 for granting car loan of Rs.130000/- in his favour for the purchase of the said car in question. The complainant mistakenly mentioned the amount as Rs.130000/- instead of Rs.118000/-. And Rs.9000/- has security money is not yet disbursed to the complainant which has been withheld by o.p. no.1. But the complainant is entitled to get Rs.9000/- as security money from o.p. no.3 and the bank has not yet paid said Rs.9000/- as security money to either to the complainant or to her agent because o.p. no.3 has not yet given any instruction to pay such security money of Rs.9000/- to the complainant, but ev9idently and admittedly as we are said above the car has been delivered to o.p. no.3 who is in possession of the same. We smell something rat in the instant dealing between the o.ps. and it appears in collusion with each other o.p. no.3 has wrongly withheld he security money of Rs.9000/- in collusion with two other o.ps. and there is no evidence on record that o.p. no.3 has paid the security money of Rs.9000/- to its authorized agent viz. M/s. Car Dimension . O.p. nos.1 and 2 both are aware of it. So, o.p. nos.1 and 2 are found deficient in providing services to the complainant and complainant is entitled to get the security money of Rs.9000/- subject to the instruction by o.p. no.3 to o.p. nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, all the o.ps. are jointly and individually responsible for non payment of security money of Rs.9000/- to the complainant. Definitely this amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, Ordered, that the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. nos.1 and 2 and ex parte without cost against o.p. no.3. O.p. nos.1, 2 & 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.9000/- (Rupees nine thousand) only and to pay compensation of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for her mental agony, harassment etc. and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only positively with thirty days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the grand total of amount of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand) only will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid correct. Supply copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees. _____Sd-_______ ______Sd-______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
