AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 583/2005 against C.D. 307/2004, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad     

Between:

A.Krishna Murthy

S/o. A. Ramaswamy

Age: 46 years

R/o. F.No. G2

Sai Keerthi Apartments

Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur

Hyderabad.                                                            ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                 Complainant 

                                                                    And

1. Associates India Finances Services P. Ltd.,

Regd. Office at 3-LSC, Pushpa Vihar

New Delhi

Rep. by its Managing Director

Mr. Jai Kumar

2. Associates India Finances Services P. Ltd.,

P.No. 9-10, Uma Chambers

Road No. 1, Banjara Hills

Hyderabad

Rep. by Asst. General Manager

Mr. Manav.

3. M/s. ACER Motors

Rep. by Veeran Chowdary

Managing Director

A1, Moti Valley,

Tirumalagherry

Secunderabad.                                           ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:                          Mr. S. Prasada Rao

Counsel for the Resp:                                 Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy (R1& R2)

                                                                   Mr. A.P. Venugopal (R3)                                                         

QUORUM:

                          HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT     

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

FRIDAY,  THE TWENTY  NINETH  DAY OF AUGUST  TWO THOUSAND EIGHT

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

          The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 

          The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Maruti 800 E1  under finance scheme from R3 for a total cost of Rs. 2,02,313/-.  He was asked to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards down payment and balance of Rs. 1,87,313/-  by way of finance.  R1 & R2  finance company  agreed to finance, obtained his signatures on blank hire purchase forms, 60 blank cheques of  Lakshmi Vilas Bank  as security towards repayment of  loan.   On execution of  hire purchase agreement,  R3 delivered the vehicle without furnishing invoice or  T/R. No. They were necessary to get the vehicle registered, as such car was kept idle in garage without registration.   He issued legal notices  on  27.11.2002 and 19.12.2002 directing R3 to deliver T/R No and invoice.  This amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  While he had to pay Rs. 1,87,313/-, R3 had collected Rs. 1,95,000/- from R2 finance company in excess of  Rs. 7,687/-.   Since  the vehicle was not registered  he could not ply it,  and  therefore he was made to hire taxi  and spent Rs. 2,51,560/-.  He has suffered mental agony.  He being a President  of  a political party by name ‘Ajay Bharat’, claimed  Rs. 7,687/- towards excess amount, Rs. 2,51,560/- towards expenses incurred for hiring  taxi  and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards damages for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs.

          R1 & R2 financers filed counter denying the allegations made against them. They stated  that the complainant had applied for loan of Rs.1,95,000/-   for purchase of a vehicle,  and the same was sanctioned,  and was disbursed to R3  dealer  of the vehicle.  The allegations that he had signed on blank hire purchase forms etc. were not true.   However, they admitted that they had taken post dated cheques towards monthly instalments.  After receiving the amount R3  had delivered the vehicle to the complainant.  They were not concerned  with  furnishing of  invoice  or T/R No.  by  R3  to  the complainant.  

It is not within their knowledge.   It was a dispute between them.  They have issued  documents  including invoice,  copy of the agreement etc. after sanction of loan facility as per the procedure.   In order to drag them into controversies these allegations were made.   There was no deficiency in service on their part.  Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          R3 the dealer alleged that when the complainant had approached it for purchase of Maruthi Car  the same was delivered to him  on 31.7.2002 without even payment of advance or earnest money  on the promise that he would pay the same on the next day.  It was delivered out of bonafide faith in him.    It did not recommend R1 & R2 to finance the amount.  The allegation that it did not submit T/R No. at the time of delivery is not true.   The said procedure was not in existence at that time when he purchased the vehicle.   After receipt of entire amount, invoice etc. were issued to him.  Since there was delay in payment  an amount of Rs. 5,325/- towards interest for a period of 71 days at the rate of Rs. 75/- was demanded in addition to Rs. 3,327/-  towards the sum payable to the marketing executive of R1 & R2.  The contention that they collected excess amount was incorrect.  Since they have released invoice etc. there was no deficiency in service  on their part.   They came to learn that the vehicle was seized by R1 & R2 for non-payment of instalments, and sold to third party. The complaint is belated,  and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

          The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit and Exs. A1 to A8 while the respondents filed Exs. B1 to B4.  The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that  Ex. B1 copy of  invoice was given to the complainant.  After the amount has  been  released by R1 & R2 to R3 the vehicle was delivered to him on 31.7.2002 even before payment of  amount. The complainant could not prove that the agreement or invoice was  not issued to him as such he could not register the vehicle.   Since the complainant could not prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of  respondents, the Dist. Forum  dismissed the complaint.   

          Aggrieved by the said decision the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  It ought to have held that R3 has misled the court by stating that  R1 & R2 seized the vehicle,  and sold to third party whereas the very vehicle was in fact with him.  The vehicle could not be used by him due to non-furnishing of invoice and T/R. No.  and transfer of registration,  and other documents.  This amounts to deficiency in service and entitled to the amount claimed by him.

          It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased  Maruti car from R3  on the finance given by R1 & R2.  The vehicle was delivered to him  on 31.7.2002.   The cost of the vehicle is Rs. 2,02,313/-.  The complainant had paid Rs. 15,000/-. Balance of  Rs. 1,87,313/- was financed  by R1 & R2 evidenced under Ex. B3.  The vehicle was sold under hire purchase agreement of R1 & R2.   While the complainant alleges that though he had received the vehicle from R3, in view of the fact that invoice and T/R No. were not furnished he could not get the car registered.  He kept the vehicle in  garage without using it  for several months.   He was forced to  engage a taxi  and spent a sum of  Rs. 2,51,560/- evidenced under  Ex. A1 receipts.  The  fact  that  the  invoice is  prepared  is  evidenced  by  Exs. B1 & B2.  

The complainant despite the fact that  he received the vehicle on 31.7.2002  did not protest  by  issuing a complaint to either of the parties alleging that  in view of the fact that non-furnishing of  invoice or sale certificate he could not get the vehicle registered. He did not file these documents before the Registration authority in order to find out if any documents are required.  There is no endorsement from the authority as to the documents that are required.    For the first time a complaint was made four months there after i.e., on 27.11.2002.   It is not known why he kept quiet for the  entire period.   At any rate, when  the  complainant  was asserting that he

was having possession of the vehicle,   and in the light of  Exs. B1 & B2  there could not be any difficulty for him to get the vehicle transferred in his name.   

Even in the grounds of appeal  he asserts that the vehicle is still with him.  The fact that R1 paid the cost of the vehicle to R3 dealer of the vehicle is not  disputed.  Ex. B1 invoice and  Ex. B2 sale  certificate  addressed to R.T.O show that R3  had prepared the necessary documents in order to enable the complainant to get the vehicle registered in his name.  The complainant could have verified with the RTO authorities  whether the copy of Ex. B2 was in fact sent to him.  There is no reason  why either  R3  or R1 or R2  object  to get the vehicle registered in the name of the complainant.  

The complainant is not an illiterate or an ignorant person, he contested for Parliamentary constituency  vide Ex. A8.   By virtue of Exs. A3 delivery receipt  he could not have any difficulty  for him to get the vehicle transferred in his name by directing the  respondents to furnish  remaining documents.  It is strange that he did not  approach the RTO  with these documents.  On refusal of RTO to register the vehicle in his name, he could have issued a registered notice calling R3 to furnish the remaining documents so as to get the vehicle transferred.   He did not address RTO in order to find out whether the documents that were given by R3  were sufficient to get the vehicle registered in his name.   We are unable to give credence to the version of the complainant, in the light of above documents.  We do not see any error in appreciation of the evidence by the Dist. Forum in this regard.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.

          In the result the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

                   PRESIDENT                                               LADY MEMBER

                                                Dt. 29. 8. 2008.