By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The complainant’s case is that he had remitted 30% of the purchase cost of Toyota Qualis vehicle with the showroom of Nippon Toyota Private Ltd. at Puzhakkal as per the direction of respondent that if 30% of the amount is paid by the customer they will arrange loan for the balance amount with interest at the rate of 13.2%. The complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- on 3.7.01 and after the inspection of respondent on 4.7.01 Rs.1,17,000/- was paid on 5.7.01. Thus the complainant had been remitted Rsw.1,67,000/- in total. On 5.7.01 itself the complainant had given to respondent the necessary documents along with 35 cheques of Rs.13,642/- each. As per the request of the respondent towards the first instalment a D.D. for Rs.13,642/- was also given. Thus the complainant was made payment of Rs.1,80,642/- with the respondent. It was assured that the vehicle will be delivered on 10.7.01. But it was not delivered and when enquired it was intimated that they were unable to provide delivery by effecting the loan. There was an increase in the cost of the vehicle after 16.7.01 for Rs.21,110/-. So a notice was issued to the respondent by dated 13.8.01 and the respondent replied for the notice with untrue matters. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter of respondent is that the respondent is not the institution giving loans. The respondent is arranging loans to the customers from Citibank having Head Office at Chennai. As per that the respondent entrusted the documents and the loan application submitted by complainant with the Citibank in time. As an intermediary this respondent has done all the things and there was no default on the part of this respondent. It is incorrect that this respondent promised the complainant for delivering the vehicle on 10.7.01. This respondent is not liable to deliver the vehicle after availing loan to the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of Citibank the borrower should have facilities for keeping vehicle and also road facility. In the case of complainant these facilities are not there and enquiry conducted by the Bank would reveal that the complainant has no source of income to repay the loan. So the loan application of the complainant was rejected. The approval of loan is the sole discretion of the Bank. There was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. Hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Was there any deficiency in service from the respondent?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P8, Exts. R1 series and the oral testimony of RWs-1 and 2.
5. Points: The complaint is filed to get compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. In order to purchase a Toyota Qualis vehicle as per the direction of respondent the complainant had been remitted 30% of the cost of the vehicle with the showroom of Nippon Toyota Private Ltd. It was agreed by respondent that if 30% of the total cost paid they will arrange loan from Citibank for 13.2% interest. It is the case of complainant that even if he had complied all the demands by respondent, the loan application was not honoured and so he had suffered loss.
6. Exts. P1 to P3 are the documents which would show that the complainant had been remitted the amount stated by the respondent. There is no dispute with regard to the payments and the receipts issued by respondents are produced and marked as Exts. P1 to P3. It is the case of complainant that after complying the prior formalities for the purchase of vehicle the vehicle was not delivered and the respondent committed deficiency in service. Ext. P4 is a letter from respondent to complainant that car loan application of complainant for Rs.3.87 lakhs was not sanctioned. It is stated in Ext. P4 that even though they had forwarded the file with all necessary documents, their verification agency’s report was ‘negative’ and hence the file was rejected by the Bank. It is the regret from respondent that they are extremely sorry for all the inconvenience caused to the complainant in this regard. So the entire case of complainant is admitted by respondent. But they shifted their liability to Citibank who is not a party in this case.
7. Ext. R1 is the loan application along with the connected documents submitted by complainant to respondent. It is the case of respondent that they have played their part very well and the bank by using their sole discretion rejected the claim of complainant. From Ext. R1 it can be seen that the house of applicant is located in paddy field and entry is through paddy field and not connected by motorable roads. It is the case of respondents that it was one of the conditions of Citibank that if there was no road facility the Bank will not sanction loan. The business clarification report states that the business activity is very little and the firm has no other source of income. The verification of the business gave a doubt whether the party can make payments without default. So it can be realized that the repayment facility was also considered by the Bank before sanctioning the loan. In the counter the respondent stated that the Bank will look into the capacity of repayment facility also. In the counter it is also stated that they are not giving loans to anybody and they are arranging loans from Citibank to the needy people. But they have no case that this is the first case they are doing with Citibank. So they will very well aware about the terms and conditions of the loan. So it was their bounden duty to ensure before making payment by the complainant with regard to the conditions of Citibank. They did not do so. It is a serious deficiency in service on their part and they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
8. The Bank Manager of City Bank is examined as RW1 and the Ext. R1 series are marked through him. There is nothing to blame Citibank and the Citibank is totally a stranger to complainant. RW2 is the proprietor of respondent and he deposed that the respondent institution is not functioning for 10 years. He has no case that this the first case they dealt with Citibank. So it is implied that he is supposed to aware of the terms and conditions of the vehicle loan of Citibank. From the above discussion it is proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent.
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant with costs Rs.750/- (Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 9th day of December 2010.
