Date of Filing : 04.03.2011
Date of Order : 23.11.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 23RD day of November 2011
PRESENT
Sri.H.V.Ramachandra Rao B.Sc., BL …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 454/2011
Sri.Rajappa M,
No.250, Sorahunase Janatha colony,
Varthur,
Bangalore 560 087.
(By Advocate Smt.J.Akshatha) ……. Complainant
V/s.
Cholamandalam Finance Ltd.,
Cholamandalam House,
No.28/1, Kensington Road,
Off. M.G.Road, Opp.Gurudwara,
Bangalore 560 042
(By Advocate M/s Fx & Co) ... Opposite Party
ORDER
(By the President Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO)
The brief antecedents that yet to be filing of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the OP to return extra amount repair and replace the machine parts with original parts and pay repayment of Rs,25000/- and interest are necessary.
2. On the financial assistance of the OP to the tune of Rs.26,000/- which has to be paid with interest at a EMI of Rs.1,448/- for 24 months and the first installment to be started in Nov.2008 on 07.11.2009 the complainant purchased the two wheeler vehicle and hypothecated it with the OP. Till 07.11.2009 he had paid 13 EMIs. Subsequently as he could not pay the EMIs regularly, the OP repossessed the vehicle issued pre- sale letter on 12.01.2011 demanding certain amount. The complainant paid Rs.23,030/- on 17.1.2011, three days later they received further sum of Rs.5000/- from the complainant on 21.01.2011. The OP issued the release letter of the vehicle on 24.01.2011. When the complainant went to take the vehicle he found that certain parts of the vehicle is missing that is mirror, Disc Brake catch, Shock-obserbers and all the tyres were replaced when approached the OP refused to listen to the matter.
2. In brief the version of the OP are :
Sanctioning of the loan, repayment of EMIs, repossession of the vehicle, pre sale notice, payment are all admitted. As per the inventory that has been made the vehicle is ready to be delivered but the complainant with an ulterior motive refused to take the vehicle.
3. To substantiate the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
B) What order?
5. Our answers :
A) Positive
B) As per the detailed order for the following
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record it is an admitted that the complainant had obtained financial assistance from the OP to purchase two wheeler vehicle bearing No.KA-01-EK-499 on 17.10.2008 and he had agreed to repay the same in EMIs of Rs.1,448/-. He had paid 13 EMIs regularly. A loan agreement was also executed on 15.10.2008 in this regard. As the complainant defaulted in payment the OP repossessed the vehicle on 13.01.2011 (vide document No.3 find by the OP at page No.27) but strangely a pre sale notice was issued to the complainant dated 12.01.2011 claiming certain amount. The complainant had paid Rs.23,030/- on 17.01.2011 and another sum of Rs.5,000/- on 21.01.2011. The OP has issued the vehicle release order on 24.01.2011. These are all admitted.
7. Even after this the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant nor the complainant took the possession of the same.
8. The complainant states that when he went to take delivery he found the mirror, Disk Brake catch, Shock Obserbers were not there, the wheels along with tyres break. Hence he did not take delivery. The OP admits non taking of delivery by the complainant. But it contends that they have made an inventory and according to their inventory they are prepared to give delivery of the vehicle.
9. Hence let us probe further. The vehicle was repossessed on 13.01.2011. The pre sale notice was issued on 12.01.2011. The inventory was made on 15.05.2011 as per “Ruby enterprises inventory sheet product two wheeler” (at page 28 of the document produced by the OP.). That means no inventory was made on 13.01.2011 or on 12.01.2011 when the vehicle was repossessed, nor the inventory was made on 17.01.2011 or on 21.01.2011 when the amount was paid. Nor on 24.01.2011 when the release order was issued. But this was made on 16.05.2011. Long after filing of this complaint. There is no document to show that an inventory was made on 13.01.2011 when the vehicle was repossessed. Hence it has no relevance or value.
10. Further when the entire amount was paid on 21.01.2011 why the release order was not issued on that day? There is no answer.
11. It is further seen that the complainant has issued notice to the OP on 01.02.2011. Even then the OP did not care to replace the parts which has been removed from the vehicle and return the vehicle. This is nothing but an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
12. When the complainant has clearly stated about missing or replacing of the parts, the OP never stated that the mirror, disk break catch, shock obserbers, tyres have not been replaced. Hence if we direct the OP to take the vehicle to the Suzuki Show room get the original parts fitted therein at their cost and return the vehicle to the complainant and pay certain compensation we think that will meet the ends of justice. Hence we hold the points accordingly and pass the following
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP directed to take the vehicle bearing No.KA-01-EK-499 to the Suzuki Showroom get it tested with respect to the mirrors, disk break catch, shock obserber, wheels and tyres and get the originals fitted to the vehicle take the certificate and deliver the correct vehicle to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant.
4. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of this proceedings.
5. OP is directed to send the amount as ordered at para 3 above to the complainant by DD through RPAD and submit to this Forum a compliance report with necessary documents within 30 days from the date of this Order.
6. Return the extra sets to the concerned parties as under regulation 20(3) of the consumer protection Regulation 2005.
7. Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23rd day of November 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
