Complaint filed on: 23-02-2017 Disposed on: 27-10-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.19/2017
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
C.Dasappa,
No.75, Gayatri Nilaya,
Aralimaradapalya main road,
IDSMT layout,
Sira gate, Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.B.Eraiah)
V/s
Opposite party:-
Assistant Chief Manager,
State Bank of Mysore,
Tumakuru main branch,
Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.T.H.Venkatesh)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP to pay 3,24,251=00 along with interest and to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000=00 towards compensation in total Rs.4,24,251=00, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
On 30-6-2014 the complainant has purchased a Mahindra and Mahindra 275 ID tractor through auction from the OP by paying a sum of Rs.1,60,000=00, but the said tractor is in the name of Sri.Doddaiah.
The complainant further submitted that, after purchasing the said tractor from the OP, the complainant has approached the OP several times to get the documents and registration of the vehicle in the name of complainant and he went to the RTO office along with OP. The RTO officer informed the complainant that, firstly the vehicle should be registered in the name of Sri.C.Dasappa. Thereafter, it has to be transferred in the name of State Bank of Mysore and then the complainant can registered vehicle in the name of complainant.
The complainant further submitted that, till today, the OP has not taken any step to get the registration done in his name. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant has come up with the present complaint.
3. After service of the notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed written version, contending interalia as under:
The OP submitted that, in fact the vehicle was auctioned and sold “as is where is” condition. The vehicle was standing in the name of Sri.C.D.Lokesh under temporary registration. The RC owner submitted the vehicle transfer form 29 and 30 to the OP bank. The Bank in turn handed over the vehicle transfer form with the signature of RC owner Sri.C.D.Lokesh. It is the duty of the complainant to get the transfer of documents in his name by submitting the concerned paper before RTO. The complainant has failed to follow the transfer procedure prescribed in law to get the tractor in his name. The bidder/complainant was aware about the temporary registration in the name of Sri.C.D.Lokesh.
The OP further submitted that, the OP bank had advanced under ATL tractor loan account to a limit of Rs.4,30,000=00 to Sri.C.Doddalingaiah s/o. late Sri.Doddanarasaiah with co-borrowers 1) Sri.Gangadhara Thilak, 2) Sri.C.D.Lokesh and 3) Sri.Navarathnakumar. All are sons of Doddalingaiah, on 3-12-2004 for the purchase of tractor and trailer. The said tractor was registered in the name of Sri.C.D.Lokesh S/o. Doddalingaiah under temporary registration on 6-12-2004 with RTO Tumakuru. The said Sri.Doddalingaiah became defaulter in paying loan installments. Inspite of many reminders the borrower Sri.C.Doddalingaiah has not paid upto date loan installments. Consequently it is decided to sell the tractor through public action. Accordingly auction notification issued on 19-6-2014 by fixing the date of auction on 30-6-2014 at State Bank of Mysore, Regional office-3, Tumakuru and Terms and Conditions of auction of sale being published in the paper notification. The said tractor has been purchased by the bidder in the auction by Sri.C.Dasappa S/o. late Sri.Chikkarangappa, the present complainant for Rs.1,60,000=00. The complainant has paid Rs.40,000=00 on the same day and remaining Rs.1,20,000=00 remitted to the OP bank on 1-7-2014. As per the terms and conditions No.5 in the paper publication dated 19-6-2014, it shows that, all the expenses relating to vehicle sale, such as legal/stamp duty/registration fee/insurance charges/taxes/RC/FC/permits should be borne by the purchasers only.
The OP further submitted that, it is mentioned as unregistered vehicle in the paper notification at serial no.9. Further under condition no.6, the auction was held “as is where is” basis. The bidder was aware of non-registration of the tractor. The OP bank issued letter to M/s. Nagarjuna Detective, Tumakuru on 1-7-2014 to deliver the vehicle to the complainant. Accordingly the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle on the same day. It is also instructed in “auction notification to examine the vehicle and the documents with M/s. Nagarjuna Detective. The said Mahindra tractor was temporarily registered in the name of C.D.Lokesh (R.C. Owner). It is the duty of the bidder (complainant) to get the vehicle registration in his name by submitting the necessary form and documents to RTO office by following the transfer procedure. But the complainant failed to follow up the procedures for registration. So it is the lapse of duty on the part of the complainant himself and not on the OP.
The OP further submitted that, there is no cause of action to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Having accepted all the terms and conditions contained in the paper publication, it may be deemed that, the complainant/purchasers has clearly understood the contents. As such it is the responsibility of the purchaser to bear all the expenses as explained in terms and conditions no.5. Hence, the bank is not responsible for not registering the vehicle. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents and the OP has produced documents which were marked as Ex-R1 to R26. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents and then posted the cases for orders.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the affirmative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint and objection of the OP, it is an admitted fact that, on 30-6-2014 the complainant has purchased a Mahindra and Mahindra 275 ID tractor through auction from the OP by paying a sum of Rs.1,60,000=00. The complainant alleged that, after purchasing the said tractor, the complainant has approached the OP several times to get the documents and registration of the vehicle. But till today, the OP has not taken any step to register the vehicle in his name.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the OP submitted that, the OP bank had done all efforts to get the registration of the above said vehicle in the name of complainant. But the RTO has orally informed that, the permanent registration directly in favour of the complainant was not possible unless permanent registration should be done first in favour of Sri.C.D.Lokesh. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the OP has filed a memo seeking for permission to implead the Sri.C.D.Lokesh as a party to this proceeding. But the complainant has strongly objected the contention of the OP as he has not purchased the vehicle from Sri.C.D.Lokesh, but he has purchased the above said vehicle through public auction from the OP. On perusal of the documents produced by both parties, it is seen that, Sri.C.D.Lokesh is no way concerned with this complainant and there is no transaction between Sri.C.D.Lokesh and the complainant. The complainant had purchased the said vehicle through public auction from the OP by paying an amount of Rs.1,60,000=00 and the OP has received the said amount from the complainant. The liability is on the part of the OP to transfer RC in the name of complainant.
9. Further, the OP submitted that, the said vehicle was sold through public auction. On the condition No.9 mentioned as the above disputed vehicle is unregistered vehicle and auction will be held “as is where is” basis. Admittedly, the OP sold the vehicle in the auction “as is where is”. It means that, the physical condition of the vehicle and not with regard to the ownership. Since, the vehicle was purchased by the complainant in public auction and as on that time, the temporary registration certificate stood in the name of Sri.C.D.Lokesh. The OP himself has admitted that, the RTO has informed the OP that, permanent registration should be done first in the name of Sri.C.D.Lokesh and then it has to change to the OP bank and then the OP bank has transferred the RC to the complainant’s name. But not done so, the OP has committed default.
10. Further the complainant has also produced letter dated 30-6-2014 issued by the Asst. General Manager, SBM, Bengaluru Zone-2, Region III, Tumakuru to the Chief Manager, Tumakuru branch. On perusal of the said letter, the Asst. General Manager has directed the Chief Manager, Tumakuru branch to give certificate and RC book to complainant after duly canceling their lien on the tractor after collecting the balance amount from the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant has paid full auction amount of the vehicle to the OP. It is bounden duty of the OP to transfer the RC in the name of complainant after canceling the lien on the tractor.
11. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the vehicle from the OP through auction, but the above said vehicle sold without having proper ownership documents and title. It held that, the bank had a duty to get the vehicle transferred to its own name before putting up it for auction. As this was not done, the complainant could not get ownership rights, despite having paid money for the vehicle. It is make clear that, the OP is negligent and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not transferring the RC in the name of complainant. So, we hold that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP, so the OP is directed to transfer the RC in the name of complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the OP shall pay an amount of Rs.1,60,000=00 to the complainant along with 12% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of payment i.e. on 30-6-2014 to till the date of realization. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000=00 to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and damages and Rs.5,000=00 towards cost of litigation and accordingly, we answer the point No.1 in the affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
The OP is directed to transfer the RC in the name of complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the OP shall pay an amount of Rs.1,60,000=00 to the complainant along with 9% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of payment i.e. on 30-6-2014 to till the date of realization.
The OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000=00 to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and damages and Rs.5,000=00 towards cost of litigation respectively.
The complainant is directed to cooperate with the OP to get the RC to his name.
This order is to be complied by the OP within 60 days from the date of this order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 27th day of October 2017)
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
