Ms. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER        

31.05.2024

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In brief the facts of the  complaint are that complainant visited OP1 and booked Activa scooter with black colour on 10.01.2014 with the booking amount of Rs. 1000/-. It is informed by OP1 that the finance scheme was also available with them in respect to the scooter in question through HDFC Bank with the processing charges 2% and documentation charges 2.5% on a loan amount of Rs. 30,000/- and total processing charges would come to the tune of Rs. 1350/-.

2. It is alleged by the complainant that being influenced by the lucrative finance offer complainant agreed for finance scheme and as such requested OP1 to finance the vehicle in question. OP1 assured the complainant that the inquiry officer of OP4 Bank will contact him and arrange the finance. After 3 days of the booking one official of OP4 visited the complainant and collected the requisite documents for processing the claim. On 16.01.2014 complainant received the SMS that ‘your application of two wheeler loan account no. 26937910 for Honda Activa is approved’. After receiving the message complainant immediately approached OP1 for getting the delivery of the vehicle but OP1 refused to deliver the vehicle under the pretext that stock is finished. On 23.01.2014 OP1 call the complainant to complete the loan formalities and as such the complainant signed the requisite documents supplied the copy of the relevant documents as well as signed the loan documents with OP4 for processing the loan.

3. On 24.01.2014 OP1 called the complainant and asked him to deposit Rs. 25,350/- and as such after deducting the booking amount of Rs. 1000/- complainant paid a sum of Rs. 24,350/- in cash to OP1 vide receipt dated 24.01.2014 and balance amount of Rs. 23,900/- was to be adjusted by OP1 to 4 as agreed and thereafter OP1 handed over to the complainant Active Honda scooter with temporary no. DL-08-TC-0211 and assured the complainant to collect the insurance certificate as well as RC on 25.01.2014 and 28.01.2014 respectively. Despite visiting on 25.01.2014 and 28.01.2014 OP1 failed to handover the insurance certificate as well as RC to the complainant. On 28.01.2014 OP1 asked the complainant to visit OP4 for completing some loan formalities as the signature got mismatched, believing on the words of the OP1, complainant visited OP4 and asked its officials to obtain the signature on the relevant documents. Despite waiting for a long period the officials of the OP namely Mr. Verma again asked the complainant to produce residents proof as well as identity proof for verifying the signature, the complainant submit him that he had already deposited the requisite documents but Mr. Verma refused to entertain him and further threaten him to withheld the RC and recover the scooter through police.

4. It is alleged by the complainant that OP1 to 4 in connivance with each other withheld the RC and also did not approve and disburse the finance amount. After continuous visit and follow up finally on 25.02.2014 the official of the OP verify the signature of the complainant and assured him to handover the registration certificate of the vehicle within 2 days. Again on 28.02.2014 the officials of the OP telephonically requested the complainant to again provide the copy of the postpaid bills earlier submitted at the time of signing of the loan agreement and assured the complainant to handover the RC after receiving the bills.  It is alleged by the complainant that despite completing the entire loan formalities neither OP1 to 4 financed the vehicle nor had released the RC causing financial loss as well as mental pain and agony to him, hence, this complaint.

5. Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs. OP1 filed its written statement and raised the preliminary objections that the said Scooter/Activa was delivered to complainant on 24.01.2014. The total bill of the said scooter/active is Rs. 52,388/-. The complainant only paid Rs. 24,900/- to OP1, balance amount was to be financed by OP4 i.e. HDFC Bank Ltd. but due to some documents verification/signature of complainant, the loan was not disbursed to complainant. It is further stated that balance amount of Rs. 27,488/- is due on complainant. The OP1 is entitled to get Rs. 27,488/- with 9% interest per annum from 24.01.2014 till the date of payment to OP1 from complainant or either by financer i.e. HDFC Bank Ltd.

6. It is stated that after finance a mandatory clause HYPOTHECATION is endorsed on RC, Insurance etc. In the absence of finance, vehicle cannot be registered. Moreover, Form-34 supposed to be sent is released by the financers for registration of vehicle. Hence, dealer has no fault in it. Delay occurred at the end of financer. After completion of finance activity/process rest of other formalities would have taken place. It is further stated that since OP1 has already delivered the vehicle in question to the complainant no liability as such can be fastened qua OP1 in respect to the complaint case in question. It is further prayed that present complaint be dismissed with cost being frivolous one.

7. Despite opportunity OP2 failed to file its written statement.

8. OP3 filed its written statement and stated that no cause of action arose in favor of the complainant and against OP3 in the present complaint case.  The complainant has simply leveling the allegation of collusion between  OP1,2 ,3 & 4 however, failed to substantiate the same, hence, the present complaint be dismissed qua OP3.

9. OP4 filed its written statement wherein it is stated that on 28.02.2014 the file of the complainant was processed but the loan amount was not disbursed due to mismatch of spelling in mobile bill and E-Aadhar Card. Thereafter, the complainant refused to submit the requisite documents as such the loan could not be processed. On 07.03.2014 again on the request of the complainant the address verification of the complainant was conducted but his address was not traceable and as such again complainant was requested to provide some landmark so that the verification process can be done. Again on 19.03.2014 the address verification was conducted and at this juncture also the verification of the complainant was negative as his existence was not confirmed. It is further stated that the loan amount of the complainant was not disbursed due to aforesaid reason as such no liability can be fastened on OP4 for non disbursement of the loan. It is further prayed that present complaint be dismissed with cost being frivolous one.

10.  Rejoinder to the WS of OP1,3 & 4 filed by the complainant. Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint. Complainant has placed on record copy of booking receipt, copy of cash payment receipt, copy of delivery chalan, copy of Vodafone bill and its detail, copy of email in support of his contention.

11. Sh. Parmeet Singh Anand Director of OP1 filed his evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP1. He has placed on record the copy of invoice, copy of delivery chalan, copy of number plate of vehicle, copy of the policy documents in support of his contention.

12. Sh. Rahul Kadiyan, Legal Manager filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP4. Despite opportunity OP3 failed to file his evidence by way of affidavit.

13. Written arguments filed by complainant, OP1 & 3. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Lalit Kumar, Sh. D.K. Sinha counsel for OP1, Sh. Harshal Arora counsel for OP4. Despite opportunity OP2 & 3 failed to address the arguments and have perused the record.

14. It is argued on behalf of complainant that despite giving assurance by OP1 to 4, all the OPs failed to provide the finance facilities as assured by them at the time of booking of the vehicle as well  as the delivery of the vehicle and all the OPs in connivance with each other has withheld the RC of the vehicle in question, hence, the relief claim be granted.

15. On the contrary it is argued on behalf of OP1 that the complainant had paid only 24,900/- to OP1 and balance amount of Rs. 27,488/- is yet to be paid by him either by finance or by any other mode, hence, no case of deficiency in service can be made out qua OP1 as such the present complaint be dismissed with cost with the direction to the complainant to pay the balance amount.

16. It is argued on behalf of OP4 that since after verification the existence of the complainant could not be verified despite 3 attempts, hence, OP4 withdraw the approval of the loan sanctioned against the vehicle in question. It is further prayed that present complaint be dismissed with cost being frivolous one.

17. The complainant has alleged in his complaint that all the OPs in connivance with each other withheld the RC and has not intentionally provided the finance scheme available to him. The complainant has placed on record the copy of the finance scheme available against the two wheeler. As per the finance scheme, OP4 processed the loan of the complainant and after verification denied the disbursement of the loan. The complainant has failed to place on record any documentary evidence which shows that OP1 to 4 were bound to provide the finance facility to him.

18. Admittedly, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 1750/- to OP4 for processing the loan. The processing fee is non refundable and submission of the loan documents does not fastened the liability on OP4 to disburse the loan. It is the discretionary power of the OP4 Bank either to disburse or not to disburse the loan. The complainant had failed to place on record any documentary evidence which shows that he is eligible/entitle for the vehicle loan and OP4 has intentionally not disburse the loan.

19. The complainant is well aware that he had paid only 24,900/- to OP1 against the vehicle in question and still there was a balance amount of Rs. 27,488/- outstanding against the vehicle in question to be paid to OP1. The complainant had not taken any step to repay the balance amount of vehicle in question to OP1 as such we are of the considered opinion that the complainant had not approached this Commission with clean hands and abuse the process of law.

20. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that due to lack of documentary evidence complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in service on the part of OP1 to 4. The present complaint is therefore dismissed being devoid of merit.

21. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced  in open Forum on 31.05.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER