KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.89/13

JUDGMENT DTD:17/11/14

(Against the order   in CC No.32/12 on the file of CDRF,   Pathanamthitta, dated 21/07/12) 

PRESENT

SMT. A. RADHA                          :   MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :          MEMBER

APPELLANT

1. Managing Director,

Mahindra & Mahindra,

Finance Corporation Ltd.,

Head Office, 2^nd Floor,

Sadhana House,

Behind Mahindra Towers,570, P.B. Marg,

Worli, Mumbai – 18

1. Mahindra and Mahindra Finance

Corporation Ltd., Branch Office,

College Road, Pathanamthitta

(By Adv. Sri.Poovappalli M.Ramachandran Nair & Abhishek R.

V/s.

RESPONDENTS

1. George Mathew,

Mulavlil Kannattumannil,

Kumpalathamon. P.O.,

Vadasserikara, Pathanamthitta

1. Nippon Toyota Motor Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

R/by its Managing Director Babu Moopan,

Head Office, Nirmal Jayaprakash, No.X/314, K NH 47,

Nettor P.O., Maradu, Ernakulam

1. The Senior Manager (sales),

Toyota Dealers, Nippon Motor Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

MC Road, Nattakom, Kottayam.

(By Adv. Sri. D.Arun for R1 & Adv. Sri. R.Jayakrishnan for R2 & 3)

JUDGMENT

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :          MEMBER

          This appeal is filed by the appellants against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta in CC.32/12, dated 21/07/2012.

2.      The 1^st respondent booked a Toyota Innova Car from 2^nd and 3^rd respondents on 23/06/2011 by paying an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- and also intimated that the car must be delivered on or before 26.11.2011 as he intended to gift the car to his niece as gift for her marriage.  On around13.11.2011, 3^rd respondent confirmed by phone the car is ready for delivery and required to pay the balance amount immediately.  1^st respondent  arranged finance for Rs.8.5 lakhs with 1^st and 2^nd appellants on 16.11.2011 and on the same day the 1^st appellant even collected Rs.31,000/- as the 1^st installment and other charges of the loan, based on the condition that the amount shall be paid to 2^nd and 3^rd respondent directly.  On 17.11.2011 3^rd respondent confirmed they have received the delivery order from 2^nd appellant and asked the 1^st respondent to remit the balance of Rs.2,07,000/- which includes registration charges, insurance and miscellaneous expenses to which the 1^st respondent complied on 18.11.2011.  But in spite of the assurance of the 3^rd respondent the car was not delivered to the 1^st respondent till the marriage got over.  Hence 1^st respondent cancelled the order on 27.11.2011 and demanded for the repayment of the amount paid.  Meanwhile 1^st appellant demanded the 2^nd installment of the finance and even on explaining the situation of non delivery of vehicle they insisted for the installment and due to the fear of having 1^st respondent pre signed cheque been presented and bounced, he made the second installment of Rs.28,600/- to appellant on 15.11.2011.  2^nd respondent informed by phone and sent a letter to the 1^st respondent confirming his vehicle is ready for delivery.  Then the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party that he had already cancelled the booking on 27.11.2011 and asked them to settle the matter with appellant.  So the 1^st respondent issued a legal notice on 23/122011 asking 2^nd respondent for the refund of money, interest and settling all other liabilities with the financiers.  The said notice was replied by 2^nd respondent stating that they have received the loan amount from the appellants only on  28.12.2011, to which the appellants never replied clarifying the delay or refusing the same.

3.      Hence 1^st respondent approached the lower Forum claiming deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the appellants and 2^nd & 3^rd respondents.  The Ld. Forum on examining the evidence on record and hearing the parties passed the order as following:

4.      “In the result, this complaint is allowed as follows:

1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to return the loan amount of Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs fifty thousand only) and its interest from 23.12.2011 to the opposite parties 3 and 4 as per the hire purchase agreement executed between the complainant and opposite parties 3 & 4.
2.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.2,57,388/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty seven thousand three hundred and eighty eight only) to the complainant with 10%interest from 23.12.2011 till this date along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only)
3.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 are directed to cancel the hire purchase agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties 3 and 4 immediately on getting the amount from opposite parties 1 and 2 are ordered by this Forum.
4.  Opposite parties 3 and 4 are further directed to return the entire amount collected from the complainant so far with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till this date along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant.
5.  Parties are directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, falling which the defaulters are liable to pay an additional interest of 12% per annum also to the claimants from today till the payment of the whole amount.”

              5. The order specified above is what brings the appellant before this Commission.

              6. We have heard all the parties in person and perused the documents on record.

              7. We are inclined to fall in line with the order of the District Forum.  We were not given sufficient documentary evidence nor were explanation as to why the appellants delayed the payment made to 2^nd and 3^rd respondents made only on 28.12.2011.  Prima facie there had been a grave deficiency in service by the appellants by taking the installment much earlier than actual disbursement of the loan amount and in fact the appellants extent went to such a position that still insisting on 2^nd installment again even before the payment of amount.  It is pertinent to note that in spite of fulfilling 1^st respondent obligations the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents never took the initiative in providing him the service with prompt care.  However the question here is whether the appellants can be justified?  There is no justification on the action committed by the appellants, nonpayment of loan amount even after receiving the installments from the 1^st respondent is cheating and it is evident that 1^st respondent was put under agony and pressure.

              8. The District Forum has rightly held that there is deficiency in service and has passed a reasonable order.

              In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

SANTHAMMA THOMAS    : MEMBER

A. RADHA                          :   MEMBER