Before the
Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
South 24
Parganas
Baruipur,
Kolkata – 700144
Consumer Complaint No. 186 of 2019
In
the matter of ;
Pintu
Chakraborty,
________Complainant
-
Versus –
Authority Concern/ Directors of Tata Motors Finance
Limited, and Others,
__________Opposite
Parties
QUESTIONNAIRE / INTERROGATORIES
(On
behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 – Tata Motors Finance Limited)
The
Complainant is hereby required to answer the following questions on affidavit, clearly, specifically,
and with reference to documents wherever applicable:
- Do
you admit that Opposite Party No. 1 is only a financier and was not the seller, manufacturer, or dealer of the vehicle in
question?
- Do
you admit that the vehicle was purchased by you from Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3, and
not from Opposite Party No. 1?
- Please
state whether you executed any Loan-cum-Hypothecation
Agreement in favour of Opposite Party No. 1 in or about February
2009.
- Is
it not a fact that you voluntarily availed a loan of Rs. 2,40,000/- from Opposite
Party No. 1 for purchase of the vehicle?
- Please
state the number of EMIs actually
paid by you towards the said loan and the last date of payment made by you.
- Do
you admit that you stopped paying
EMIs on your own accord without any written consent or waiver from
Opposite Party No. 1?
- Please
state whether you ever issued any written
request to Opposite Party No. 1 seeking rescheduling, moratorium,
or settlement of the loan dues prior to repossession.
- Please
state whether you have any expert
report, job card, or manufacturer’s certification proving that the
vehicle suffered from manufacturing
defects.
- Is
it not a fact that you never approached Opposite Party No. 1 with any written
complaint alleging defect in the
vehicle, as Opposite Party No. 1 is not concerned with servicing or
manufacturing?
- Please
state whether you continued to use
the vehicle for a considerable period prior to stopping EMI
payments.
- Do
you admit that no direction from any Court or Forum restrained you from
using the vehicle prior to repossession?
- Do
you admit that the vehicle was hypothecated in favour of Opposite Party
No. 1 and that repossession was permissible upon default under the loan
agreement?
- Please
state whether you had defaulted in payment of EMIs continuously prior to
February 2011.
- Is
it not a fact that repossession took place due to loan default and not due to any alleged defect in the
vehicle?
- Please
state whether you lodged any police
complaint against Opposite Party No. 1 specifically alleging
illegal repossession.
- Please
state whether you have any documentary proof to show that repossession was
done forcibly or unlawfully
by Opposite Party No. 1.
- Do
you admit that after repossession you did not clear the outstanding loan
dues despite opportunity?
- Please
state whether you ever approached Opposite Party No. 1 with any one-time settlement proposal
after repossession.
- Is
it not a fact that sale of the vehicle after repossession was done in
accordance with the terms of the loan agreement?
- Please
state the reason why you waited from 2011 till 2019 to file the present consumer complaint.
- Do
you admit that during this long period you chose to pursue a criminal proceeding, instead of
approaching the Consumer Forum?
- Is
it not a fact that the alleged cause of action, if any, arose in 2011, and the present complaint
is grossly delayed?
- Please
state whether you have any documentary proof to substantiate your claim of
loss of livelihood
exclusively due to acts of Opposite Party No. 1.
- Do
you admit that Opposite Party No. 1 never assured you of replacement of
the vehicle or refund of purchase price?
- Please
state whether you have suffered any direct monetary loss attributable solely to Opposite Party
No. 1, apart from contractual loan consequences.
- Is
it not a fact that your claim for punitive damages is speculative and
unsupported by any judicial finding against Opposite Party No. 1?
- Please
state whether you ever formally informed Opposite Party No. 1 regarding
alleged traffic challans after sale of the vehicle.
- Do
you admit that transfer of ownership after sale is governed by statutory
authorities and not by the financier?
- Please
state whether you have any official CIBIL report proving that Opposite
Party No. 1 alone is responsible for alleged credit score issues.
- Do
you admit that you have claimed identical reliefs against multiple opposite parties without
clearly specifying the individual role of Opposite Party No. 1?
- Please
state whether you have suppressed any material fact regarding loan default
in your complaint.
- Is
it not a fact that the present complaint against Opposite Party No. 1 is
an attempt to shift liability arising out of your own contractual default?
- Do you
admit that the vehicle was repossessed in February 2011?
34.
Do
you admit that no event involving Opposite Party No. 1 occurred after April 2011
concerning the said vehicle?
35.
Do
you admit that the present consumer complaint was filed only in 2019, i.e.,
more than eight
years after repossession?
36.
Please
state whether any written correspondence was addressed by you to Opposite Party
No. 1 between
2011 and 2019 demanding relief.
37.
Do
you admit that no legal notice was issued by you to Opposite Party No. 1 within
two years
from the alleged cause of action?
38.
Please
state whether any document exists to show that Opposite Party No. 1
acknowledged any liability in writing after 2011.
39.
Do
you admit that your application for condonation of delay does not disclose any medical incapacity,
legal restraint, or statutory disability preventing you from
approaching the Consumer Forum earlier?
40.
Do
you admit that pendency of a criminal case does not suspend limitation under the
Consumer Protection Act?
41.
Please
state whether you can cite any statutory provision which permits filing of a
consumer complaint eight
years beyond limitation.
42.
Do
you admit that repossession of the vehicle was a one-time completed act?
- Do
you admit that sale of the vehicle in 2011 was also a concluded event?
- Please
state whether any fresh act or omission by Opposite Party No. 1 occurred
after 2011.
- Do
you admit that mere mental anguish or financial difficulty does not constitute a continuing cause of
action?
- Please
state whether any order of any Court or Forum declared repossession by
Opposite Party No. 1 as illegal.
47.
Do
you admit that Opposite Party No. 1 did
not sell, manufacture, or deliver the vehicle?
- Do
you admit that allegations of defective vehicle relate exclusively to Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3?
- Please
state whether Opposite Party No. 1 provided any assurance regarding quality, condition, or replacement
of the vehicle.
- Do
you admit that your dispute with Opposite Party No. 1 arises solely out of a loan agreement?
- Do
you admit that a loan transaction is a commercial contract governed by its terms?
52.
Do
you admit that the vehicle was purchased for earning livelihood through commercial transport?
- Please
state whether you employed the vehicle for commercial carriage beyond self-employment.
- Do
you admit that you have not produced any income proof showing exclusive self-employment under
Section 2(7) proviso?
- Do
you admit that loan defaulters cannot seek consumer relief for
consequences arising out of default?
56.
Do
you admit that you first chose criminal proceedings in 2014 and approached the
Consumer Forum only after several years?
- Please
state whether the present complaint was filed after failure to obtain
relief elsewhere.
- Do
you admit that suppression of loan default facts occurred in the original
complaint of 2019?
59.
Do
you admit that refund of down payment, insurance and registration charges
cannot be claimed from a financier?
- Please
state whether punitive damages can be awarded in absence of proven mala
fide conduct.
- Do
you admit that you have not quantified any legally recoverable loss
against Opposite Party No. 1?
============================XXX=========================
No comments:
Post a Comment