BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Monday the 23rd day of March, 2009
C.C.107/08
Between:
J.V.Mallikarjuna Reddy,
S/o.J.V.Subba Reddy ,
H.No.2/5/34, Satram Street,
Allagadda – 518 543
Kurnoool District. … Complainant
Versus
1.Proprietor,
Manideep Motors,
Shop No.8,9,10, Khaleel Complex,
Near National Degree College,
Srinivasa Nagar,
Nandyal ,
Kurnool District.
2. Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Central Bombay infotech park,
Ground Floor, 101, K.khadye Marg,
Mahalakshmi ( East),
Mumbai – 400 011.
3. Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Durga Tractors compound,
Gaytri Estate,
Kurnool – 518 002. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan , Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri E.Srinivasulu , Advocate, for the opposite party No. 1 and Sri.A.Siva Ramaiah & C.Raghava Reddy Advocates for opposite party No.2 and opposite party No. 3 is called absent set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.107/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12
of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction on opposite parties to registered the
complainants vehicle with RTO and to handed over the RC book to the
complainant with necessary documents , to refund the amount of
Rs.5,310/- collected from the complainant in excess, to refund an
amount of Rs.5,891/- collected from the complainant in excess ,
Rs.2,000/- towards vehicle damages, Rs.50,000/- towards business loss
and mental agony , Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint and any
other relief or relief’s which the complainant is entitled in the
circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant
attracted with the advertisement by opposite party No. 1 as to
concession of Rs.2,000/- on the purchased of Yamaha Two Wheeler ,
approached opposite party No. 1 who is the dealer of Yamaha brand
vehicles. The opposite party No. 1 advised the complainant to approach
opposite party No. 2 and 3 who provided finance to Rs.37,291/- to the
complainant . The opposite parties 2 and 3 provided finance for 24
months and the complainant issued 24 post dated cheques of Rs.1800/-
monthly installments to opposite parties 2 and 3. The opposite party No.
3 disbursed the loan amount to opposite party No. 1 directly . The cost
of the vehicle was Rs.39,990/- but the opposite party No. 1 collected a
sum of Rs.3,600/- and Rs.200/- , Rs.460/- , Rs.100/- , Rs.1050/- and
Rs.200/- , and opposite party No. 1 also collected Rs.6,500/- on 28-04-
2006, Rs.4,750/- on 25-09-2006 and Rs.1500/- on 20-06-2006 towards
down payment charges and released the vehicle to the complainant and
issued a temporary registration No.AP 21 L 7901 . Thereafter the
complainant approached opposite party No.1and produced the vehicle
for permanent registration but the opposite party No. 1 postpone the
registration of vehicle on sum pretext or other. The complainant also
submits that the opposite party No. 1 issued a bogus TR number and
also collected excess amount from him . On 26-09-2007 the opposite
parties 2 and 3 seized the vehicle of the complainant by breaking the
locks of the vehicle without consent of the complainant and the
complainant paid Rs.10,800/- on 29-09-2007 and opposite party No. 2
handed over the vehicle to the complainant and it was observed that the
key set and head light doom were damaged and the battery was also
removed on approaching the opposite parties 2 and 3 , who promised to
repair the vehicle and bear expenses but so far they have not fulfill the
promise. Even though the opposite party No. 1 collected registration
charges from the complainant, but they have not registered the vehicle
with RTO officials, hence when ever the vehicle is plying on the road the
police are objecting as the said vehicle was not registered. Due to the
attitude of opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony and
financial loss and approach the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following
documents viz., (1) receipt dated 20-06-2006 for Rs.1500/- , (2) receipt
dated 29-05-2006 for Rs.4,750/- , (3) receipt dated 28-04-2006 for
Rs.6,500/- , (4) payment receipt dated 13-11-2006 for Rs.7,200/- , (5)
payment receipt dated 27-09-2006 for Rs.7,600/- , (6) payment receipt
dated 29-09-2007 for Rs.10,800/- , ( 7) account statement from 01-01-
2004 to 12-03-2007 , (8) xerox copy of the complainant preferred to
town SI allagadda , (9) final payment receipt dated 18-12-2007 for
contravention S-131 MV Act, (10) service record for motor cycle of
complainant , (11) statement of account of Andhra Bank pertaining to
the account of complainant for the period 27-02-2006 to 29-11-2006 ,
(12) credit bill dated 30-09-2006 , besides to the sworn affidavit of the
complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above
documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A12 for its appreciation in this and
also relied on the third party affidavit S.Malleswara Reddy and replies to
the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the
complainant the opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared through their
standing counsel and contested the case , the opposite party No. 3
remained absent through out the case proceedings and were made exparte. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed separate written versions.
5. The written version of opposite party No. 1 denies the complaint as
not maintainable either in law or on facts and submits that he is not a
authorized dealer of Yamaha brand vehicles at Nandyal and he is only a
service unit and no advertisement in leading newspapers was given by
him . The loan amount from opposite parties 2 and 3 disburse to Amar
Auto Enterprises , Kurnool directly and the cost of the vehicle i s
Rs.40,990/- ,Amar Auto Enterprises paid sum of Rs.3,805/- towards life
tax , Rs.951/- towards insurance , and the total cost of the vehicle on
road is Rs.47,586/- and the complainant paid only Rs.12,750/- and a
sum of Rs.36,000/- due and an amount of Rs.34,782/- was paid to Amar
Auto Enterprises , by opposite party No. 2 . The TR number given to the
complainants vehicle was not bogus one and it is for the complainant to
approached the opposite party and collect the relevant papers and
approached RTO office for registration of his vehicle and lastly submits
that after the vehicle is handed over to the complainant the complainant
never approached the opposite party No. 1 and there is no deficiency of
service on part of opposite party and seeks for the dismissal of complaint
with cost.
6. The written version of opposite party No.2 denies the complaint as
not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits that the loan
amount of Rs.37,291/- was provided to the complainant for 24
installments of Rs.18,000/- each as the complainant was not regular in
payment of installments the opposite party No. 2 and 3 seized the
vehicle on 26-09-2007 and after receiving payment of Rs.10,800/- the
vehicle was handed over to the complainant in good condition and no
damages were there as alleged by the complainant . This opposite party
is only a financier to provide a loan and nothing to do with registration of
the vehicle by RTO and the amounts in para No. 2 of the complaint
received by opposite party No. 1 as nothing to do with opposite parties 2
and 3 and alleges deficiency of service on part of opposite party No. 2
and 3 and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with cots.
7. In support of their case the opposite parties side relied on the
following documents viz., (1) bill No. 95 dated 22-06-2006 for Rs.40,990/- , (2) receipt No.2392 dated 07-06-2006 for Rs.34,782/- ,
(3) bill No. 7152 dated 22-06-2006 issued by opposite party No 1 for
Rs.1,280/- , (4) e-seva receipt dated 23-06-2006 for Rs.3,805/- , (5)
temporary certificate of registration , (6) motor vehicle insurance cover
note in favor of complainant , (7) attested copy of renewal power of
attorney, (8) statement of loan account of complainant dated 31-07-
2008 , (9) attested copy of tow wheeler agreement dated 30-05-2006
and (10) letter dated 29-09-2007 , besides to the sworn affidavit of
opposite parties 1 and 2 in reiteration of their written version averments
and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B10 for its
appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant
is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties ?.
9. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Yamaha
Motor Cycle vide Ex.B1.The Ex.B1 is the Tax invoice issued by one Amar
Auto Enterprises , Kurnool to the complainant for Rs.40,990/-. The
complainant purchased the said motor cycle by availing finance from
opposite parties 2 and 3 for Rs.37,291/-. The opposite party No. 1
received down payment charges vide Ex.A1,A2 and A3 , i.e Rs.1500 on
28-04-2006, Rs.4,750/- on 29-05-2006 and Rs.6,500/- on 20-06-2006
and handed over the vehicle to the complainant by issuing T/R No.AP 21
L7901.
10. The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party
No. 1 collected excess amount from the complainant and also issued a
bogus TR number.
11. Regarding the excess amount collected the complainant did not
aver anything in the complainant as to what excess amount the opposite
party No. 1 collected from the complainant . But in the written
arguments the complainant stated that the cost of the vehicle is Rs.
46,150/-( i e . Rs.45,600/- + Rs.550/ extra fitting charges ) , the
complainant paid Rs.14,750/- to opposite party No.1 and the remaining
balance is Rs.46,150/- - Rs.14,750/- = Rs.31,400/-, the loan sanctioned
by opposite party No.2 and 3 is for Rs.37,291/- and the amount payable
by complainant is Rs.31,400/- only ie. Rs.37.291/- Rs.31,400/- =
Rs.5,981/- . The complainant alleges that Rs.5,981/- was excess
collected by opposite party No. 1.
12. But the opposite party No. 1 in their written arguments submitted
that as per invoice in Ex.B1 the cost of the vehicle is Rs.40,990/- and
helmet charges are Rs.560/-, vide Ex.B4 Amar Auto Enterprises ,Kurnool
paid life tax of Rs.3,805/- to the complainants vehicle on 0 3-06-2006
and vide Ex.B3 dated 22-06-2006 the extra fitting charges are calculated
to Rs.1,280/- and Rs.951/- was paid towards insurance charges totaling
RS.47,586/-( Rs.40,990/- + Rs.560/- + Rs.3,805/- + Rs.1280/- +
Rs.951/- The complainant vide Ex.A1, A2, A3 paid Rs.1500/- +
Rs.4,750/- + Rs.6,500/- ie., totally Rs12,750/- only. Total cost of the
vehicle is Rs.47,586/- and the complainant paid Rs.12,750/- and the
loan amount received by Amar Auto Enterprises is for Rs.34,782/- on
07-06-2006 through cheque No.224843, total cost of the vehicle is
Rs.47,586/- - Rs.12,750/- - Rs.34,782/- = Rs. 54/- balance and the said
balance amount of Rs.54/- to be paid by the complainant .
13. From the above what appears is that the amount paid by the
complainant and is Rs.12,750/- and loan amount received towards the
purchase of said vehicle is Rs.34,782/- totaling Rs.34,782 + Rs.12,750/-
= Rs.47,532/- .The amount of complainant was accounted to
Rs.47,586/- and the complainant paid Rs.47,532/-, hence no excess
amount was collected by opposite party No. 1 from the complainant.
14. The other allegation of complainant is that the loan amount
sanctioned by opposite parties N o . 2 was for Rs.37,291/- but the
opposite party No. 1 submitted that the loan amount received by Amar
Auto Enterprises as per Ex.B2 towards cost of vehicle is for Rs.34,782/-
only. The opposite party No. 2 in reply to interrogatories No. 6 of
complainant , replied that they have paid Rs.36,173/- by way of cheque
to Amar Auto Enterprises, but to substantiate their contention , the
opposite party No. 2 did not place any such cogent relevant material , on
record , therefore it cannot be said that opposite party No.2 sent
Rs.36,173/- to Amar Auto Enterprises . As it was already proved that
opposite party No. 2 sent an amount of Rs.34,782/- to Amar Auto
Enterprises vide Ex.B2 . Therefore the difference amount of Rs.36,173-
Rs.34,782/- = Rs.1,391/- has to be accounted by opposite party No.2 to
the complainant .
15. The other allegation of complainant is that bogus T/R number is
issued by opposite party No. 1 ,no material is on record to prove that
bogus T/R is issued to the complainant . Hence this plea of the
complainant is rejected.
16. The other allegation of complainant is that the opposite party
No. 1 is not registering his vehicle, as per Ex.B1 invoice the vehicle was
purchased from Amar Auto Enterprises, Kurnool and on request of
Amar Auto Enterprises the opposite party No. 1 delivered the vehicle to
the complainant , and it is for the complainant to collect all the papers
from opposite party No. 1 and submit the same with RTO and to register
his vehicle . The opposite party No. 1 submitted that the complainant
never approached him for collecting the papers and get his vehicle
register. Hence this plea of the complainant is also remaining as devoid
of merit and force.
17. To sum up there is no material on record to prove that the
opposite party No. 1 has collected excess amount from the complainant
and there is nothing on record to show that it is for opposite party No. 1
to register the vehicle of the complainant . Hence both the plea are
rejection. As already held above the opposite party No. 2 has to account
towards difference amount of Rs.1,391/- to the complainant .
18. In view of the above discussion as the opposite party No. 2 is
liable to account for the balance amount of sanctioned loan as an
amount of Rs.34,782/- was account under Ex.B2 and as the material
papers relating to said vehicle of the complainant for the purpose
registration etc., being said to be with opposite party No.1 and as the
opposite party No.2 contends in its written arguments that the
complainant hold still some due and in rebuttal of the same the
complainant has not placed any cogent material , the complainant on
Clearance of the said loan the opposite parties 1to 3 are directed to cooperate with the complainant on his approach for registration of his
vehicle with relevant papers. Time granted for compliance is one month
from the receipt of this order.
19. In the circumstances of the case no costs and no compensation and each party to the proceedings to bear their costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 23rd day of March, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Receipt dated 20-06-2006 for Rs.1,500/-.
Ex.A2. Receipt dated 29-05-2006 for Rs.4,750/-.
Ex.A3. Receipt dated 28-04-2006 for Rs.6,500/-.
Ex.A4. Payment receipt dated 13-11-2006 for Rs.7,200/-.
Ex.A5. payment receipt dated 27-09-2006 for Rs.7,600/-.
Ex.A6. Payment receipt dated 29-07-2007 for Rs.10,800/-.
Ex.A7. Account statement from 01-01-2004 to12-03-2007,
Ex.A8. Xerox copy of the complainant preferred to town SI
Allagadda.
Ex.A9. Final payment receipt dated 18-12-2007 for contravention S-131 MV Act.
Ex.A10. Service record for motor cycle of complainant.
Ex.A11. Statement of account of Andhra Bank pertaining to the account of complainant for the period 27-02-2006 to 29-11-2006.
Ex.A12. Credit bill dated 30-09-2006.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Bill No. 95 dated 22-06-2006 for Rs.40,990/-.
Ex.B2. Receipt No.2392 dated 07-06-2006 for Rs.34,782/-.
Ex.B3. Bill no. 7152 dated 22-06-2006 issued by OP.No.1 for
Rs.1,280-.
Ex.B4. e-seva receipt dated 23-06-2006 for Rs.3,805/-.
Ex.B5. Temporary certificate of registration .,
Ex.B6. Motor vehicle insurance cover note in favor of complainant .
Ex.B7. Attested xerox copy of renewal power of attorney in favour
Of Aditya Puri.
Ex.B8. Statement of loan account of complainant dated 31-07-2008.
Ex.B9. Attested xerox copy of two wheeler agreement dated
30-05-2006.
Ex.B10. Letter dated 29-09-2007.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
