Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/1518

MUNNALAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SH. MANISH NEMA

11 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1518 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 27.06.2014 passed in C.C.No.25/2013 by District Commission, Narsinghpur)

 

MUNNALAL JAIN,

S/O SHRI SHIKHARCHAND JAIN,

R/O SINGHAI STATIONERY MART,

STATION ROAD, POST-GOTEGAON,

DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)                                                                                  … APPELLANT.

 

                  Versus

 

1. REGIONAL MANAGER,

    UNION BANK OF INDIA,

    REGIONAL OFFICE, RUSSEL CHOWK,

    JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

2. BRANCH MANAGER,

    UNION BANK OF INDIA,

    BRANCH-GOTEGAON, DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR (M.P.).

 

3. SUMIT AGRAWAL,

    S/O SHRI S. C. AGRAWAL,

    R/O AGRAWAL MEDICAL STORES,

    NEAR BADA PUL, GOTEGAON,

    TEHSIL-GOTEGAON, DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)                                  …. RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                                   

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Manish Nema, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri H. R. Mutreja, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2.

            None for the respondent no.3.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 11.07.2024)

         The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:

           Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Narsinghpur (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.25/2013 whereby the complaint filed by

-2-

complainant/appellant has been dismissed, the complainant has filed this appeal.

2.                The facts of the case as narrated by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) are that after availing loan facility for a sum of Rs.6 lacs from the opposite party no.2-bank he had purchased a Tavera bearing registration number MP-15 CA-0535 from the opposite party no.3. It is alleged by the complainant that despite taking price of the subject vehicle, the opposite party no.3 did not handover possession of the subject vehicle to him despite repeated requests. He has also alleged that without his consent the opposite party no.2 bank made payment of loan advanced to him to the seller i.e. opposite party no.3. It is also submitted that the complainant lodged FIR with the police against the opposite party no.3 but the police did not take any action against him. He also made complaint to the opposite party no.2-bank. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties approached the District Commission seeking cost of vehicle Rs.6,00,000/- with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

3.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service against the opposite parties. Hence this appeal by the complainant.

4.                Heard. Perused the record.

-3-

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the District Commission without considering the evidence available on record has erroneously dismissed the complaint. He argued that the
District Commission did not consider this aspect that the opposite party no.3 after taking consideration of the subject vehicle did not handover the possession of the vehicle to the complainant. The opposite party no.2-bank also without taking any consent from the complainant that whether he has received the subject vehicle or not made payment to the opposite party no.3.  

6.                Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1 and 2 bank argued that the complainant made an agreement to purchase the subject vehicle from the opposite party no.3 and has submitted documents with the bank. On the basis of those documents, the bank sanctioned the loan and on receiving intimation from the complainant that he had received possession of the vehicle made payment to the opposite party no.3 via Demand draft 269 dated 18.09.2009. The bank demanded repayment of loan from the complainant and hence the complainant has filed a frivolous complaint. For the agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party no.3, the bank is not liable. He argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as there has been no deficiency in service on part of the bank.

-4-

7.                None appeared for the opposite party no.3, the seller of the subject vehicle, however, the opposite party no.3 in its reply before the District Commission has submitted that on receiving price of the vehicle Rs.6 lacs via DD No.269 dated 18.09.2009 from the bank, he immediately handed over the possession of the subject vehicle along with relevant papers to the complainant and had also given the sale letter so that the complainant can get the vehicle transferred in his name but he did not get the vehicle transfer in his name. Thereafter the complainant got the vehicle transferred in his younger brother’s name Sunil Jain alias Bablu and both brothers sold the subject vehicle to someone else. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.3.   

8.                The complainant has filed his affidavit along with documents C-1 to C-10 as per list. On behalf of opposite party no.1 and 2-bank an affidavit of Thakur Das, Branch Manager along with bank statement has been filed. The opposite party no.3 has filed his affidavit.

9.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record as also the impugned order, we find that the complainant has alleged that after taking price of the subject vehicle the opposite party no.3 did not handover possession of the subject vehicle. He has also alleged that the bank without his consent made payment to the

 

 

-5-

opposite party no.3 the seller. In the year 2012, the complainant made an application to the police and thereafter filed a criminal complaint before

Civil Judge Class-I, Narsinghpur which is pending whereas he had purchased the subject vehicle in the year 2009. He kept silent for a period of three years.

10.              The District Commission in paragraph 8 of the impugned order has observed that on perusal of legal notice dated 23.12.2011 sent by the complainant to the opposite party no.3 (C-7) it is observed that in paragraph 4 the complainant has stated that after giving possession of the vehicle you were not delivered the documents/papers of the vehicle from which it is clear that the opposite party no.3 had already given possession of the vehicle to the complainant. Though notice dated 23.12.2011 (C-7) is not in record but reference of which is made in notice dated 17.01.2012 (C-8). Learned counsel for parties are also not objected to it. In an affidavit filed by the Branch Manager of the bank has also submitted that after making payment via DD to the opposite party no.3, the complainant never made any complaint to the bank. In such circumstances, it can be presumed that the opposite party no.3 had already handed over the subject vehicle to the complainant.

 

 

-6-

11.              Later on the complainant in the legal notice dated 17.01.2012 (C-8) has mentioned that by clerical mistake in the earlier notice dated 23.12.2011 (C-7) it has been mentioned that you have given possession of the vehicle but in fact the possession was not given. Such a notice appears to be an after thought and manipulated, more particularly when he purchased the vehicle in 2009 and did not take any action for a period of two years i.e. 2011, when he did not get the possession of the vehicle.

12.              The complainant has also not controverted the affidavit of the Branch Manager of the bank as also to the pleadings of the opposite party no.3 that after getting the vehicle transferred in his younger brother’s name both brothers sold the vehicle to someone else.

13.              Also from the bank statement filed by the bank, it is clear that though the complainant deposited the bank loan installments but in the year 2013 still there is overdue of Rs.3,76,920/-. The complainant pleaded that he was paying installments regularly from 2009 to 2013 then also it is surprising to note that without taking vehicle he was paying the installments regularly.   

14.              From the aforesaid, it is clearly established that the opposite party no.3 had given possession of the vehicle to the complainant. Thus there has been no deficiency in service on part of bank and the opposite

-7-

party no.3. The District Commission has rightly observed the same and dismissed the complaint.  We do not find any illegality of infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, it is hereby affirmed.

14.              In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 

 

               (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

            Acting President                          Member