STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 386 of 2014
AGAINST
CC No. 372 of 2012, DISTRICT FORUM II, HYDERABAD
Between :
M/s. Axis Bank Ltd
Rep. by its Senior Manager,
5-2-183/184, 3rd floor,
R.P. Road, Beside Mahindra and Mahindra
Secunderabad
Represented by Mr. E. Balaji,
S/o Sri E. Chandramouli,
Age : 33 years, Occ: Pvt service
R/o Hyderabad .. Appellant/opposite party
And
Gautam Gupta, S/o Purshottam Gupta,
Aged about 34 years, Occ : Business,
R/o Flat No. 1502, 15th floor, A Block
Fortune Towers, Hitech City Road,
Madhapur, Hyderabad .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Lotus Law Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Served
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Eleventh Day of April
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 09.05.2014 made in CC 372 of 2012 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM II, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the second complainant, in brief, is that he purchased Audi Car bearing No. AP 09CE0699 for a sum of Rs.31,23,105.00 from Sanjay Kumar and the said car was hypothecated to AXIS Bank Ltd. On 15.09.2011 he went to the opposite party office along with the said Sanjay kumar and after paying the balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- vide Loan Account No. AUR 000800315613, he requested the opposite party to issue No objection Certificate, for which, the Manager informed that it has to be issued from the Head office. Nobody is coming forward to purchase the vehicle as NOC was not issued and further due to lapse of time the value of the car was drastically came down from Rs.31,30,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- , they dragged the matter on one pretext or the other, which, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.6,00,000/- towards the value of the Car being depreciated to the value at which the complainant purchased, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards the travel charges incurred by him for taking services of hire car and Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for deficiency in service and costs.
4). The opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version contending that the complainant is not a consumer as the agreement for the Auto Loan was executed between M/s. Axis Bank Ltd and Sri Sanjay Kumar, Managing Partner of M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels and the complainant is third party to the proceedings. The Auto Loan Customer obtained loan amount of Rs.26,25,000/- and Rs.43,48,000/- for the purchase of Audi Car and Jaguar Car vide loan Account Nos. AUR 0008000315613 and AUR 000800344872 to be repaid in 37 monthly installments @ Rs.83,025/- per month and Rs.1,39,670/- per moth respectively. The Auto loan customer had got the Audi Car registered vide No. AP09CE0699 with RTO authorities by getting the hypothecation, whereas, he did not get hypothecation with regard to Jaguar Car in the name of the opposite party Bank and also failed to pay the installments on their respective due dates. As per the terms of the loan agreement, they did not give NOC because the Auto Loan Customer failed to get the hypothecation of the Jaguar car in their name. Hence there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5). During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. The opposite party filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B1 to B4. Heard both sides. Both sides filed their respective written arguments.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the opposite party to issue NOC to the complainant for the vehicle bearing No. AP09CE0699, to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-within 30 days.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Heard the counsel for the appellant and he also filed written arguments. No representation for the respondent/complainant despite service of notice.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No. 1 :
We have perused the documents. Ex. A1 is the Photostat copy of the Certificate of Registration of Audi Car bearing Registration No. AP09CE0699. It shows that Sanjay Kumar is the owner of the vehicle and it was hypothecated to the appellant/opposite party Bank and he has to pay total amount of Rs.24,23,105/- vide Ex. A2 towards the Account No. AUR000800315613 and it was repaid vide Ex.A3 Bank receipt. Ex.A4 is the receipt dated 15.05.2011 which shows that Sanjay Kumar, Owner of the Audi Car bearing Registration No. AP09CE 0699, received Rs.7,00,000/- from Mr. Gautam Gupta on account of total payment towards the sale of their Audi Car Registration No. AP09CE069. Ex.A5, Form 30 and Form 29 are for transfer of the said vehicle and insurance in favour of the respondent/complainant and Ex.A6 is the Statement of Account which shows that the Account was closed. Ex.A7 is the used car valuation report. It is to be inferred that the said car was sold by the Sanjay Kumar to the respondent/ complainant and admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to discharge of the entire loan amount.
11). The main contention of the appellant/opposite party Insurance company is that since he did not get hypothecation with regard to Jaguar Car in the name of the opposite party Bank and also failed to pay the installments on their respective due dates and hence they did not issue NOC with regard to Audi Car. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that during pendency of this appeal, the said M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels have cleared the outstanding pending loan in another loan account which was availed for purchase of jaguar Car and hence the appellant had sent NOC, through courier, for the said car, i.e, Audi Car to the borrower M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels. The counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent/complainant is not a consumer as he ahs not availed any loan from the appellant/opposite party by paying consideration. There is no evidence on record to show that the respondent/ complainant paid any amount to the appellant Bank. Though, Ex. A3 Bank receipt was filed for an amount of Rs.24,23,105/- under Account No. 0080102000076003, it is not known the name of the Account holder. There is no evidence on record that the said amount was paid by the respondent/complainant on transfer of the vehicle in question in his favour. There is no evidence on record that there is any relation in between the appellant Bank and the respondent/complainant. Further, the transferor of the vehicle was not made as a party. There is no evidence on record that the respondent/ complainant has sent any notice to the appellant Bank that he purchased the vehicle in question from Sri Sanjay Kumar. There is no evidence on record that the respondent/complainant took loan from the appellant Bank. The Respondent/ complainant failed to prove that he availed the services of the Appellant Bank and that he is a consumer. The District Forum failed to look into these aspects.
12. After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that the respondent/complainant has not availed the services of the Appellant Bank and that he is not a consumer.
13. Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 09.05.2014 in C C 372 of 2012 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad and consequently the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 11.04.2018.
