FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI REYAZUDDIN KHAN, MEMBER
This is an application U/S 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019.
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant contacted with the OP2 “The Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd” which is a non Banking Financial organization at their Kolkata Branch regarding the financial support/Loan to purchase a heavy goods vehicle.The OP2 suggested to contact the Ragunathganj ,Murshidabad office for the same. The Representative of the Ragunathganj ,Murshidabad office visited the house of the complainant and convinced him for availing the loan with colourful assistances and assurances .The representative of OP 2 took numerous signatures of the complainant on the documents without the complete knowledge of the loan in question.After discussion the OPs issued a loan of Rs,10,60,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakh and Sixty thousand) only in favour of the complainant on 31/08/2018 through a vide loan Agreement (being no.RAGNJT 808300006).The complainant purchased the heavy goods vehicle vide Registration No.WB57B3299 The complainant was almost regularly paying the EMIs of the said loan.maximum EMIs have been paid despite the Covid-19 pandemic lock down as the complainant did not have any ill intention for non payment of the said loan.Only some were left to repay the EMIs of total consideration.Due to non payment of some of the EMIs,the representatives of the OPs always trying to seize the schedule vehicle from the custody of the complainant.Hence,the complainant was unable to run the vehicle for which his livelihood was depended.The complainant tried for final settlement of the loan for which he has submitted a prayer on 03.01.2022 but the OPs have not paid heed to the said matter. The OPs always threatening over phone,through representative of forcibly snatching the schedule vehicle and asked for total payment of due amount by 30th December,2022 or they could seize the vehicle with the help of Police.Further, the complainant stated that the complainant is in great financial crunch as he is unable to run the vehicle freely on road due to fear of seizing from OPs.Under,the above circumstances the complainant made petition U/S 38 (8) not to seize the vehicle in question.The Ld. Commission considered the prayer and allowed the MA.No.77 of 2022.The complainant further prayed for the punitive damage of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) with a litigation cost of Rs,30,000/ and compensation of Rs,50,000/ for harassment ,mental agony and financial loss.The cause of action arose on 31/08/2018 when the OPs sanctioned the loan and again when the complainant went to submit a prayer for full and final settlement of loan on 03.01.2022.
Under the said circumstances, the complainant has been forced to file the complaint against the OPs to this commission with the relief/reliefs as detailed in the complaint petition.
Notice was sent to the OPs on 08.02.2023. Postal track report shows that the notice was served . But none appears for the OPs on call. No Written Version has been filed by the OPs to contest the case. On 21.02.2023 OPs were absent on call.The OPs remained absent . The case was fixed for ex parte hearing .E/Chief was filed by Complainant and prayer for time for filing BWA and for ex- parte hearing was fixed on 16.03.2023.Later,The matter of ex-parte argument was heard and we proceeded for giving judgment.
Points for Determination
In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.
1) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant?
2) Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1 to 3:-
All the points are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity in discussion We have perused the documents on record, photo copies of certification of Registration of the vehicle,Bank statement, application for settlement of loan to the OPs dated 03.01.2022,E-chief by the complainant and other documents on record.The complainant purchased a heavy goods vehicle of Registration No.WB57B3299 by hypothecation with Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd,6,Lyons Range,Kolkata-700001on consideration amount of Rs.10,60,000/- on 31/08/2018 vide loan Agreement No.RAGNJT808300006.The complainant further stated that the maximum no’s of EMIs have been paid only few left for repayment without any relaxation during Covid19 period too.The complainant does not have any sort of ill intention for non payment of the EMIs and clear the burden of Loan. In spite of the noble intention of the complainant the OPs men regularly threatening the complainant for seizing of the vehicle in question for non payment of the some of the EMIs.The complainant was unable to run the vehicle on road in fear of the forcibly seizure and that hampering the day to day livelihood of the complainant. The complainant also prayed for Ad-interim injunction u/s 38(8) which was allowed with MA.No.777 of 2022 and again prayed for extension of the Ad interim injunction which was registered as MA No. 121/2023 was extended till 25.05.2023. The complainant made request several times for full and final settlement of the said loan for which the complainant approached the OP3 on 03.01.2022 at their office but the concerned branch rebuked the matter.The OPs are still adamant and wanted to settled the matter with one time payment basis.
The OPs remained absent . They filed no written version. So OP’s view in this regard is not clear. The Evidence on Affidavit filed by Complainant also remains unchallenged and uncontroverted from the side of the OPs.
It has been submitted for the complainant the cause of action arose on 31/08/2018 when the OPs issued loan Rs 10,60,000/ only in favor of the complainant .It has also been submitted for the complainant that the complainant went to the office of the OPs with a letter dated 03/01/2022 Annexure “D” for full and final settlement of the loan amount but no document showing service of copy of the letter dated 03/01/2022 to the OPs has been annexed in the complaint petition and as such the said letter can not be considered in the instant case .
In view of the above observation,we are opined that the complainant has not filed the consumer complaint within the stipulated period of time for the cause of action and such the instant consumer complaint hits the limitation of time.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed Ex-parte being barred by limitation.
Copy of the judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost as per the C.P. Act and Judgment be uploaded in the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.
