Date of Filing      : 09.08.2019

                                                                                                                  Date of Disposal: 23.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                        .…. PRESIDENT

                  THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A,B.L.,                                                                  .....MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN, B.Com., ICWA (Inter), B.L.,                                       ....MEMBER-II

 

CC. No.33/2019

THIS TUESDAY, THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

Mrs.Komala Devi,

W/o.Thennrasu,

No.4/456, J.Nagar, Venmanambudur,

Kadambathur, Thiruvallur Taluk                                                              ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

1.The Authorised Signatory,

    Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited,

    No.27A Developed Industrial Estate, Chennai 32.

 

2.The Manager,

    Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited,

    No.3572, II Floor, Shanthi Towers,

    TNHB Qrts, Avadi Bypass Road,

    Kakkalur, Thiruvallur District- 602 001.                                     ..........Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                      :   Mr.S.Muthukumaravel, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                                               :   Mr.V.Srinivasa Ragavan, Advocate. 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 22.07.2022 in the presence of Mr.S.Muthukumaravel Advocate counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance  and upon perusing the documents and evidences of complainant, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.MURUGAN, MEMBER.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties and for seeking direction to avail the insurance for the vehicle TN.20 CK 8307 at their own costs and to handover the original R.C. Book so as to enable the complainant to renew the vehicle with the RTO by the opposite party at their own cost and to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- per month from January 2019 till the date of opposite parties handing over the R.C. Book to the complainant for the purpose of obtaining the F.C. and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The complainant has purchased an Auto bearing registration No.TN.20 CK 8307 manufactured by Piaggio Vechiles Private limited on loan from Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, No.3572, II Floor, Shanthi Towers, TNHB Qrts, Avadi Bypass Road, Kakkalur, Thiruvallur 602 001 and initially paid Rs.37,000/- and agreed to pay the balance in instalments.  The vehicle was insured by the opposite party with the Liberty General Insurance.  The complainant has to pay Rs.6794/- per month for the first 11 months and Rs.6739/- per month for the next nine months and Rs.6110/- per months for the last 15 months aggregating to a sum of Rs.2,28,835/- at the completion as of 15.12.2019.  It is stated by the complainant that on 29.12.2018 she has Paid Rs.12,220/- as additional instalment since the opposite party has insisted that amount for renewal of the vehicle insurance apart from monthly instalments of Rs.6110/-.  The complainant has requested for the RC Book to go for the FC (fitness certificate) before RTO but the RC book was not given to complainant.  In the meanwhile on 07.02.2019 the surety for the complainant received a letter from the opposite party that the complainant had defaulted in payment and an amount of Rs.27,783/- which has to be paid.  Aggrieved by this action of opposite party, the complainant has approached the opposite party’s office for Statement of Account to reconcile the payments made so far.  The schedule of repayment as tendered by the opposite party is as follows;

15.02.2017 to 15.12.2017   =Rs.6794/- for each instalment.

15.11.2018 to 15.09.2018 =Rs.6739/- for each instalment.

15.10.2018 to 15.12.2019 =Rs.6110/- for each instalment.

In this, for the first two period i.e. ending June 2019 a total amount of Rs.1,92,175/- has to be paid whereas the complainant has paid Rs.1,91,294/- and there is a differences of Rs.881/- unpaid.  It is alleged by the complainant that due to this shortage of payment the opposite party has not renewed the 2nd year vehicle insurance.  But when the reconciliation on the payments made by complainant an amount of Rs.1,78,294/- only reflected in the total amount of Rs.1,91,294/- leaving a balance of Rs.13,000/- paid on 11.04.2018 unaccounted.  The opposite party ought to have updated the instalments paid and renewed the insurance of the vehicle and tendered the RC for which did not take place at all.  The complainant has stated that due to non renewal of insurance and non production of RC for fitness certificate, the livelihood of her got disturbed.  Therefore she had issued a legal notice dated 21.05.2019 which was served on the opposite party but in vain.  Therefore she has approached this Commission with prayers as follows:

To renew the insurance of the vehicle by the opposite party on their own cost.

To handover the original RC Book so as to enable the complainant to renew the vehicle with RTO at opposite party cost.

Directing the opposite party to pay Rs.11,000/- per month from January 2019 to till the date on which the opposite party handing over the RC Book to the complainant for the purpose of obtaining the Fitness Certificate;

Directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for mental agony and torture for the gross negligent and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties;

Directing the opposite party to remove the name of the complainant from the CIBIL;

Awarding the interest at the rate of 12% for the amount awarded from the date of petition till realization;

Awarding Rs.5000/- towards the cost.

Defence of the opposite parties:

The complainant entered in to a loan agreement dated 21.02.2013 vide loan agreement No.TNCHIRSV00053 with the opposite party.  As per the terms of the loan agreement, the complainant is liable to pay EMI per month.  As per clause 2.9&3 of the loan agreement, the asset is hypothecated to the opposite party herein as a security for the repayment of the loan.  As per clause 23 of the said agreement all disputes, differences claim out of the loan agreement shall be settled only by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and conciliation Act.  So the complaint is not maintainable and sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A11. In spite of sufficient opportunities the opposite parties though filed written version did not appear to file proof affidavit hence the evidence on their was closed and they also failed to appear before this commission for present oral and written arguments and hence they were called absent and were set ex-parte on 22.07.2020 for non appearance.

Points for consideration:

Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not updating to repayment of instalments and also failed to return the RC Book to the complainant? 

 If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

 

 Point:1

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Registration Book of the complainant was marked as Ex.A1;

Permit for the vehicle was marked as Ex.A2;

Loan Statement of Accounts was marked as Ex.A3;

 Notice sent to the surety dated 07.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;

Liberty Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.A5;

Chola MS Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.A6;

Legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties dated 21.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A7;

Acknowledgement card for proof of service was marked as Ex.A8;

Bill issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant for payment of Rs.13,600/- dated 11.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A9;

Schedule of repayment of amount was marked as Ex.A10;

Bill issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant for payment of Rs.38,100/- dated 11.10.2019 was marked as Ex.A11;

  The crux of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is that she had purchased the vehicle out of loan availed from the opposite parties.  Though the entire instalments of loan has been repaid the 1st opposite party did not return the RC Book and hence the complainant had come on with this complaint. Though the opposite parties filed written version stating that the complainant was a defaulter in repayment of the loan and the complaint is not maintainable in view of the arbitration agreement between the parties seeking for the dismissal of the complaint they did not appear to produce material evidence in proof of the same. In the mean time the complainant had come on with an application stating that the entire loan amount as claimed by the opposite parties had been paid by the complainant and resultantly the opposite parties had returned the RC Book to the complainant. 

On perusal of the pleadings and evidence produced by the complainant we could see that it is even admitted by the complainant that the instalments on certain occasions has been paid belatedly.  Though the complainant had submitted an allegation that the opposite parties had insisted for excess amount the complainant had not filed any Statement of Accounts to prove the same.  Further when it is repaid as per the demand to the opposite parties and the RC Book of the vehicle was obtained, this commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. Further for removal of the complainant’s name from CIBIL records they can approach the CIBIL Authorities with proof of payment of entire instalments.  Therefore we hold that the complainant had failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and as against the complainant.

In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

Dictated by the Member-II to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 23th day of August 2022.

Sd/-                                                              Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 ............... R.C.Book. Xerox

Ex.A2 .............. Permit for the vehicle. Xerox

Ex.A3 ............... Loan Statement of Accounts. Xerox

Ex.A4 07.02.2019 Notice sent to the surety. Xerox

Ex.A5 ............. Liberty Insurance Policy. Xerox

Ex.A6 ................ Chola MS Insurance Policy. Xerox

Ex.A7 21.05.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A8 ................ Acknowledgement cards. Xerox

Ex.A9 11.04.2018 Bill issued by the 2nd opposite part for payment made by the complainant for Rs.13,600/- Xerox

Ex.A10 ................. Schedule of Re-payment. Xerox

Ex.A11 Bill issued by the 2nd opposite part for payment made by the complainant for Rs.38,100/- Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties;

 

    Nil

 

 

Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                        PRESIDENT