State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors Finance Ltd. & Anr. vs Prasenjit Pathak & Anr. on 19 May, 2014
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
S.C. CASE NO.
: FA/772/2012
(Arising out
of order dated 03.09.2012 of Consumer Case No. 17/2012 of D.C.D.R.F., Purulia)
Date of Filing : 17.10.2012 Date
of Final Order : 19.05.2014
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
Represented by its Authorised
Person, having Office at :
DGP House, 4th Floor, Old
Prabhabati
Road,
Mumbai 400 025.
2. The Branch Manager,
Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
Durgapur
Branch, Creative
Marketing, G.
T. Road,
Bhiringi, P.O. Durgapur,
-
713 203, District Burdwan.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
1. Prasenjit Pathak,
S/o Bivekananda Pathak,
Amdiha, Purulia,
P.O. Dulmi Nadiha,
P.S. Purulia, District : Purulia.
2. Sanjay Mullik,
S/o Late Subodh Mallik,
Ketika, Purulia, P.O.
Ketika,
P.S. & District : Purulia.
BEFORE : MEMBER : Mrs. Mridula Roy.
MEMBER : Mr. Tarapada Gangopadhyay.
FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. Saptarsi Dutta,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Mr. Arnab Roy,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2012 passed by Learned District Consumer Dispute Rederssal Forum, Purulia in Complainant Case No.17 of 2012 allowing the same ex parte on contest with cost, directing the Complainant to pay Rs.29,989/- only to the Opposite Party Nos. 1&2 towards the due amount as remained unpaid from the date of possession i.e. 15.03.2012 within seven days, directing the Opposite Party No.1 to hand over the vehicle in question to the Complainant on receiving the amount of Rs. 29,989/- from the Complainant, further directing the Complainant the balance amount to the Opposite Party No.1 within next two years on monthly instalments as agreed earlier after getting back the possession of the vehicle, further directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation cost.
Being aggrieved by that order the Opposite Party has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds viz. fixing the matter ex parte after two days adjournment is bad in law since any company needs sufficient time to procure all documents to draft Written Version, the Ld. District Forum failed to realize that the Respondent had only paid 27 out of 47 instalments, Ld District Forum should have considered that repossession of the vehicle was done after serving pre repossession notice dated 25.02.2012 upon the Respondent and after informing the local police and, therefore the same should not have been considered as illegal.
The case of the Complainant (Respondent herein) in brief, is that he, being an unemployed youth, decided to purchase a vehicle by plying which to earn his livelihood by way of self employment and, therefore, sought financial assistance from the Opposite Party Financial Institute (Apellant No.1 herein) and the Opposite Party Financial Institute sanctioned as well as disbursed an amount of Rs. 2,56,000/- towards loan which was repayable by 47 instalments @ Rs. 8,693/- each except the last one which was fixed for Rs.5,754/-. The Complainant has further stated that the Opposite Party Financial Institute received 20 number of post dated cheques from the Complainant at the time of disbursing the loan and the same were duly encashed by them towards payment of instalments. The Complainant has further stated that the collection Agent of the Opposite Party Financial Institute used to collect the balance amount from the Complainant on an irregular basis and summing up the amount paid by cheques and by cash to the collection Agent the Complainant had paid Rs.1,56,574/-plus Rs.42,930/-= Rs.1,99,404/- in total. The Complainant has specifically stated that inspite of paying such amount the Opposite Party Financial Institute repossessed the vehicle by using muscle power on 15.03.2012 at Barakar Road without adopting the process of law which is according to the Complainant deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Financial Institute. Accordingly, the Complainant has prayed for directions upon the Opposite Party Financial Institute to hand over the vehicle on receipt of the outstanding amount of Rs.26,614/-only from the Complainant, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost to the Complainant.
The Opposite Parties did not contest the case and the case was heard ex parte.
In course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the Appellant should be given a chance so that the Appellants can contest the case and prayed for remand of the case.
In course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the Ld. District Forum rightly passed the impugned order and the Respondent is ready to comply the direction given to him by the said order.
Having heard both sides and on perusal of the record it appears that the Complainant- Respondent applied for financial assistance to the Appellant Financial Institute for purchasing a vehicle and the Appellant Financial Institute disbursed the loan to the Complainant and the loan was repayable by the Complainant by 47 instalments. The Complainant claimed to have paid the instalment on almost regular basis but, inspite of that, the Appellant Financial Institute repossessed the vehicle without due process of law.
To determine the moot point whether the Appellant Financial Institute was deficient in providing service by repossessing the said vehicle the Appellant Financial Institute needs to be given the opportunity to submit as well as to substantiate its defense.
In view of that, we are of opinion that it is a fit case for remand.
In the result, the Appeal succeeds.
Hence ORDERED, that the instant Appeal is allowed in part on contest without cost. The case is sent back on remand to the Ld. District Forum with direction to give opportunity to the Opposite Parties to file Written Version and thereafter to dispose the same as per provisions of the law.
MEMBER MEMBER