State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Mira Rani Dobey vs The Manager, Family Credit Ltd. & Others on 30 August, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/354/2010 (Arisen out of judgement dt. 5.5.10 of DCDRF, Hooghly in CDF Case No. 15 of 2009) DATE OF FILING : 28.06.2010 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 30.08.2013 APPELLANT Mrs. Mira Rani Dobey Wife of Mr. Jiban Krishna Dobey 58/A, Railway Colony Post Office- Sheoraphuli Under P.S. Serampore Dist. Hooghly. RESPONDENTS 1. The Manager Family Credit Ltd. (Formerly known as Apeejay Finance Group Ltd.) Of Technopolis, 7th Floor, AL Wing, Plot No. 4, Block-BP, Sector-V Salt Lake, Kolkata-700 091. 2. The Branch Manager Family Credit Ltd. Apeejay House, Block-A, 2nd Floor, 15, Park Street, Kolkata-700 016. 3. The Branch Manager Family Credit Ltd. Astharag Apartment Monindra Gopal Mitra Sarani Bagbazar, P.O. & P.S. Chandannagore Dist. Hooghly. 4. The Proprietor M/s. Raj Financial Service Mankundu Station Road (Sankar Foundry) P.O. & P.S. Chandannagore Dist. Hooghly. PROFORMA RESPONDENT 5. Mrs. Swapna Modak Wife of S.Modak Of Sett Lane, Krishna Pally, Telini Para P.O. & P.S. Bhadreswar Dist. Hooghly. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Raj Kumar Maji, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : None : O R D E R :
MRS. MRIDULA ROY, LD. MEMBER The instant Appeal is directed against the judgement and order dt. 5.5.2010 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Hooghly, in CDF Case No. 15 of 2009 dismissing the same on contest against the Ops without any cost.
Being aggrieved by that order the complainant has preferred the instant Appeal.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased one second-hand TATA SUMO car at a consideration Rs. 2,80,000/- with financial assistance of the OP, Family Credit Ltd., Apeejay House, Kolkata-16, by obtaining loan of Rs. 2,68,992.03 with flat rate of interest @ 1.59%, which was repayable by 36 equated monthly instalments. The said car was handed over to her by the Proforma OP No. 4 and the complainant used to pay the EMI as per stipulation. However, on 2.7.2002 when the car was on the way to Digha some miscreants had taken away the car forcibly therefrom. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged with the Srirampore P.S., Hooghly on that very date. The complainant also admitted that she defaulted in making payment of the said EMI due to dearth of money and the OP/Financier sent a letter to her on 03.03.2008 demanding Rs. 2,01,744/- for non-payment of EMIs and Rs. 2,80,954/- towards penal charges though the complainant had intimated the OP/Financier regarding theft of the said vehicle in time. The complainant specifically stated that though the said vehicle was stolen away on 30.6.2002, but till then the complainant paid the instalments till 23.7.2003. Having made payment in such a manner the complainant asked for the insurance papers from the OP/Financier in respect of the said vehicle, but the OP/Financier did not hand over the same to the complainant, which caused tremendous suffering to the complainant and hence, she filed the instant case praying for declaration by the Ld. District Forum that the Ops failed to provide appropriate service to the complainant, declaration that the Ops failed to provide the required agreement and insurance papers of the said vehicle and to declare that the Ops have no right to claim either Rs. 4,46,384 or Rs. 4,82,698/- or Rs. 4,94,404/- or even Rs. 2,01,744/- from the complainant, to declare that the Ops have deliberately and intentionally deceived the complainant in providing service, for which the complainant was entitled to get Rs. 65,276/- along with down-payment of Rs. 80,000/- as paid by the complainant to them and Rs. 40,000/- for the loss of service of her vehicle, Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and sufferings, Rs. 15,000/- for litigation cost, totalling Rs. 3,00,276/-.
The OP Nos. 1 to 3 filed a written version contending, inter alia, that a loan agreement was executed on 14.6.2002 and accordingly, a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- was disbursed to the complainant which was re-payable by 36 equated monthly instalments @ Rs. 7472/- commencing on and from 23.6.2002 and to exhaust on 23.05.2005. The OP Nos. 1 to 3 further submitted that the complainant defaulted in making payment of Rs. 37,360/- till July, 2003 and thereafter had stopped making payment of the EMI. According to the OP No. 1 to 3, the complainant was liable to pay Rs. 2,00,394/- for 27 instalments and the overdue interest for the last 7 years since 2003.
The OP No. 4 filed written statement and contested the case denying and disputing all material averments as made out in the petition of complaint stating, inter alia, that he has no liability to pay any amount to the complainant since no cause of action has arisen against him. According to the OP No. 4, the case was liable to be dismissed against him.
The Proforma OP, i.e. the OP No. 5, contested the case by filing written version stating that she sold the Tata Sumo bearing registration no. WB 16F 8228. She also admitted that she received Rs. 80,000/- towards the earnest money for selling the said vehicle.
At the time of hearing of argument none appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Admittedly, the complainant availed of financial assistance from the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- repayable by 36 equated monthly instalments @ Rs. 7472/- for purchasing a second-hand Tata Sumo car having registration number WB 16F 8228. The said vehicle was delivered to the complainant in November, 1998. The complainant used to repay the loan by scheduled instalments till 23.7.2003. But, all on a sudden, as the complainant claimed, the vehicle was stolen by some miscreants while it was on way to Digha on 30.6.2002. The complainant claimed to have lodged an FIR with the Sreerampore P.S. intimating the said incident. In support of her claim the complainant filed a photocopy of the FIR. The complainant admitted that she defaulted in making payment since she was not in a position to make payment of the EMI. The complainant alleged that she asked the OP/Financier to take steps for delivery of the documents relating to the said vehicle so that she could claim for sum assured to the Insurance Company. But the OP/Financier denied to do that. In course of argument the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant/Appellant admitted that since the car was stolen from the complainant, the complainant was not in a position to pay the instalments and, therefore, the OP/Financier could not claim the rest EMIs.
It appears from the record that the complainant/Appellant entered into an agreement for loan with the OP/Financiers under some terms and conditions for purchasing a vehicle. Accordingly, Rs.
2,64,992.03 was disbursed by the OP/Respondent/Financier. It also appears from the record that the complainant did not stick to the stipulation of the mode of repayment of the said loan, which means she defaulted in making repayment of the said loan. The complainant/Appellant has taken the plea that the said vehicle was stolen away and to that effect the complainant/Appellant lodged an FIR with the concerned P.S. In support of her contention the complainant/Appellant annexed the copy of FIR to the petition of complaint. In this regard, Ld. District Forum observed that the result of the FIR, namely, the charge-sheet or the final report, which might be given by the concerned police station, has not been filed and thus the Forum was in dark about the actual position of the FIR. Even after filing the instant Appeal the Appellant has not informed this Commission regarding subsequent development in this connection. However, a mere incident of theft of vehicle does not necessarily bar the financier to exercise his right/claim.
Further, the Ld. District Forum rightly observed that the Consumer Forum has no power for making such declaration as prayed for by the complainant. In fact, the prayers as made out in the petition of complaint cannot be entertainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
In view of the state of affairs we are of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed ex parte but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement stands confirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT