<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 18th JULY 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1208/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt.Kamalamma,No.21, “Aishwarya Laxmi Nilaya”3rd Cross, Sir M.Visveswaranagar Nagar, Rammurthynagar,Bangalore – 560016.Advocate – Sri.K.S.Mohith KumarV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,APEEJAY Finances (Family credit Limited)# 305, Prestige Meridian II,No.30, M.G.Road,Bangalore – 560001.Now in the name and styleFamily Credit Limited# 305, Prestige Meridian II,No.30, M.G.Road,Bangalore – 560001.Advocate – Sri.V.Suresh<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to return the original RC book and other connected documents with respect to vehicle No.KA-03 – MC-6372 and pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed the financial assistance from OP for the purpose of purchase of Maruthi 800 Car bearing No.KA-03-MC-6372 in the month of April 2004. OP collected all the original documents including the RC from the dealer of Maruthi Cars BEML Showroom, Mahadevapura Road, Bangalore so also took 60 post dated cheques with regard to payment of the EMI. OP without the consent of the complainant collected the said original documents from the BEML Showroom. Though complainant is ready to settle all the amount in due, OP is not prepared to return the RC and other connected documents. On insistence complainant came to know that OP has miss placed the said original RC book and later on they have sold the said RC to some other person and he is using the said documents for a similar type of vehicle for the same registration number. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they have sanctioned the loan of Rs.1,84,000/- in favour of the complainant for the purpose of purchase of the Car. Complainant executed the loan agreement No.13263 on 30.04.2004 agreeing to repay the said loan in 60 EMI commencing from 10.05.2004 to 10.04.2009. OP has collected the RC of the vehicle from BEML showroom as they got the right to lien over the RC and the vehicle in question. The other allegations of the complainant that OP has lost the said RC and that later on it sold the RC to some third party are all false. In the said RC book the hypothecation entry is made in favour of the OP as they have extended the finance. Until and unless complainant make payment of entire loan amount and get close the said account the endorsement in the RC can’t be deleted. Complainant has not approached the OP to settle the said out standing dues with so called flat interest. She has not shown her bonafides. RC book has not been lost, OP has got a right to retain RC until the closure of the said account. When complainant herself is a defaulter, she can’t allege the deficiency in service against the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the financial assistance from OP to the tune of Rs.1,84,000/- for the purpose of purchase of Maruthi Car. OP advanced the said loan and got executed the loan agreement on 30.04.2004. It is also not at dispute that complainant agreed to repay the said loan in 60 EMI commencing from 10.05.2004 to 10.04.2009. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that without her consent OP has collected the original RC from the dealer BEML Showroom and exploited the possession of the said R.C. It is further alleged that OP has lost the original RC. In another breathe it is stated that OP has sold the said RC to some other third party and he is using the same for a similar type of vehicle under the same registration number.<br /> <br /> 7. This is the serious allegation made by the complainant. If it would have been a fact nothing prevented the complainant to move criminal law into motion. She would have filed a criminal case or complaint to prevent both fraud and cheating or manipulation, but no such steps are taken. Under the circumstances the bare and vague allegations of the complainant with regard to the misuse of the RC can’t be believed. As the OP has extended the financial assistance naturally it has got a right over the said RC because an entry is made in the said RC hypothecating the said vehicle in favour of the OP as a financier. So the contention of the complainant that OP has no right to collect the RC from the dealer rather does not hold much force.<br /> <br /> 8. Of course complainant has come up with the plea that she is ready to repay the out standing dues with flat interest as undertaken if OP returns her original RC book. It is specifically contended by the complainant that OP has lost the RC or as transferred it to the third person. For both these allegations there is no proof. Complainant has claimed a strange relief seeking direction to OP to obtain the duplicate RC at its cost. As against this untenable allegation OP at para.6 of its version has specifically stated, “The Opposite Party further states that at no point of time they have stated that the RC Book in respect of the said vehicle has been lost, but on the other hand they are entitled to retain the said RC Book of the said vehicle unless and until closure of the said loan account. It is further stated that the Opposite Party is bound to return the said RC Book of the vehicle, when the loan account will be closed by the Complainant”. When that is so, OP’s approach appears to be rather fair.<br /> <br /> 9. The question of obtaining the duplicate RC does not arise in view of submission made by the OP as referred to above. If the complainant is prepared to repay all the amount in due with agreed rate of interest OP is bound to return the original RC and other connected documents. It is contended by the complainant that she made several requests and demands to OP to receive the remaining amount with flat interest and return the documents but it went in futile. That is why she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When complainant expressed her desire to repay the loan amount with interest it would have been more fair on the part of the OP to receive the same, close the account, get deleted the entry in the RC book and return the original RC along with connecting documents. Non performance of the said duty on the part of the OP, in our view amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. The hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant that too for no fault of her. It is not the case of the OP that the complainant is a chronic defaulter. She has already given the post dated cheques in favour of the OP as a security for repayment of the loan. With all that OP failed to return the RC as and when claimed by the complainant. Here also we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 11. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras, we find it is a fit case wherein complainant deserves a direction to be issued OP to return the original RC after collecting the out standing amount in due with flat rate of interest as agreed upon. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to collect the out standing due with respect to loan agreement 13263 with flat interest as per the contract entered into between them and return the original RC and other connected documents to the complainant. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />