BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY
C.C.No.13/2014
Dated this the 21st day of June 2017
(Date of Institution: 05.02.2014)
Rajaram, son of Sellappa
Ramkumaran Illam,
No.1, Selsya Street,
Sri Raja Annamalaiyar Nagar,
Puducherry – 605 006.
…. Complainant
Vs
1. HDFC Bank, rep. by its
Customer Service Manager (Chairman & MD Cell)
HDFC Bank House, Senapathi Bapati Marg
Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 1800224060
2. Volkswagen, Pondicherry
The Star Cars Pvt Ltd., rep by its
Branch Manager
No.90, Kamarajar Salai,
Thattanchavadi, Pondicherry – 605 009.
…. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,
PRESIDENT
Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Tmt D. KAVITHA, B.A., LL.B.,
MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Thiru N. Kaliyamurthy, Advocate
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: For OP1 – Thiru R.S. Zeevanandam,
Advocate
For OP2 – Thiru G. K. Govindasamy,
Advocate
O R D E R
(by Tmr. D. Kavitha, Member)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act for directing the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service; directing the second opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service; directing the first and second opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh as compensation for the physical and mental strain sustained by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant stated that his marriage was scheduled to be held on 28.10.2012 for which, he wanted to purchased a car and he was advised by one Mubarees, Manager of OP Bank to purchase Volkswagen car and also he arranged for loan. Accordingly, on 12.10.2012 the complainant met the Manager one Stephen of OP2 who in turn asked him to pay Rs.50,000/- and assured the vehicle will be delivered within seven days. Hence, the complainant selected POLO Diesel and on the same day, he issued a cheque bearing No. 812399 of HDFC Bank. The complainant had expressed that his marriage is scheduled on 28.10.2012 and requested to deliver the car on 27.10.2012 evening before the time of his reception. The complainant further stated that on 15.10.2012 he has signed in the loan application of the HDFC Bank and also in all the necessary forms. The complainant has also produced all the required documents that are needed by the bank. The Manager had stated that after two days the loan will be sanctioned and the complainant can take delivery of the vehicle from the Volkswagen showroom. Believing the words of the Manager, the complainant has arranged before the Pondicherry State Transport Authority for registering the vehicle and also arranged for the number. Thereafter the complainant had approached the Manager and verified whether the D.O copy has received by the company. The Manager had stated that the company has not received any documents or the D.O and assured that the car will be delivered on the date of reception and advised the complainant to concentrate in the marriage arrangements. The complainant had approached the Branch Manager of the HDFC Bank Pondicherry and enquired about the loan amount sent to the car company. The Sales Executive one Dhiwager has stated that the amount had sent to the showroom and asked the complainant to take the vehicle from the watchman. Whereas the Manager of the bank has played fraud on the complainant by stating false information that the D.O has sent the show room. On 27.10.2012, the Manager Steepen has told that the vehicle could not be delivered today. The 1st and the 2nd respondents have not discharged their duty and by their deficiency, the complainant has sustained loss that cannot be measured in terms of money. The complainant has restricted his claim to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for each opposite parties. The complainant also stated that the Manager has requested him and his father to give letter stating that at present they are not able to purchase the car, otherwise, he will be terminated from the service. Hence, the complainant has written that he is at default and need not purchase the car at present. On 18.02.2013, a cheque dated 13.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.45,000/- was received by post by the complainant. The complainant has sent notice on 22.02.2013 through net to the 1st opposite party and received a reply dated 2.3.2013 with false allegations. Likewise the complainant has sent a lawyers notice on 12.04.2013 and the same was acknowledged by the second opposite party on 20.04.2013 and has not chosen to reply. Hence, this complaint.
3. The reply version filed by the first opposite party briefly discloses the following:
The Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is claiming an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the ground of deficiency of service against the opposite party No.1 and also claiming an amount of 1 lakh as compensation for physical and mental strain sustained by the complainant and towards the cost to the tune of Rs.20,000/- which are all claimed for the purpose of claim. There is no evidence in respect of the sufferings undergone by them. The opposite party No.1 did not admit that they assured for the disbursement of loan within a period of two days as claimed by the complainant. The complainant himself admitted that the loan application was submitted on 15.10.2012. The complainant completed the formalities of loan application only on 22.10.2012 and submitted on the same date. Therefore any officer under HDFC Bank cannot assure that the loan will be sanctioned within a period of two days. The loan was sanctioned by the bank and the bank issued a cheque in favour of the opposite party No.2 on 26.10.2012. Therefore it is not a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 in sanctioning the loan or issuing a cheque, because the loan was processed within a period of 4 days and the loan was disbursed in favour of the opposite party No.2 on 26.10.2012. As far as the delay for the supply of vehicle is concerned, the undertaking made by the opposite party No.2 does not bind the first opposite party. Therefore there is no delay on the part of the opposite party No.1 and the question of deficiency of service does not arise. As far as the claim is concerned only in respect of non-sanctioning of loan as expected by the complainant, but there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party No.1 in respect of period of disbursement of loan. Therefore there is no deficiency and there is no pain or suffering or physical and mental strain to the complainant. On the question of cancellation of sanctioned loan, the complainant requested the bank to cancel the loan, accordingly the loan account was initiated for cancellation for closure on 27.11.2012 as per his request letter dt.27.11.2012. Therefore the same fact was also informed by the bank officials. The complainant has issued a notice of claim on 22.12.2012 through the internet, and the same was replied on 02.03.2013 by way of return reply by the 1st opposite party. Through the reply also the first opposite party has clarified the matter and requested that matter may be treated as resolved and closed. Even inspite of his dissatisfaction of the service of the bank, he obtained another vehicle loan in the name his Mother Shyamala, under loan A/c no.24083677 and he stood as
co-applicant on 28.03.2013. He availed the service of the bank after satisfying with the performance. Therefore his claim for damages is for the sake of claim with bad faith and ulterior motive.
4. The reply version filed by the second opposite party briefly discloses the following:
The above complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant booked the car namely Volkswagen, with the 2nd opposite party and also true that he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant offered loan with the first opposite party and the same was also intimated to the 2nd opposite party through reliable records as per the rules followed by the 2nd opposite party/company, only after receipt of the balance sum either through the party or its bank, the complainant has to register and deliver on very next day of working days and the same has been followed by the opposite party No.2 till date. The 2nd opposite party had received the balance amount towards purchase of the said car only on 27.10.2012 which is Saturday and therefore due to Sunday of the very next day was a holiday, the 2nd opposite party was not able to register the said vehicle through competent authority of R.T.O and therefore was not able to deliver the said vehicle to the complainant. As per the cancellation of the said booking by the complainant, through his written letter, the 2nd opposite party had returned back the amount received from the bank and also to the complainant towards the amount of advance paid by him, after deduction of cancellation charges and therefore, there was no deficiency by this opposite party. The opposite party No.2 is a mis-joinder of the party to the above case and therefore, due to impleading this opposite party being reputed concern in selling, this opposite party is put into loss of their reputation apart mental agony and other expenses and therefore this opposite party reserves their right to claim compensation against this complainant. Further at any point of time either the Manger or any one of staff of 2nd opposite party has not assured to deliver the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. This opposite party denies the allegation that the Manager of the 2nd opposite party has requested the complainant and his father to give a letter stating that the present they are not able to purchase the car. At any point of time either the Manager or any one of the staff was no necessity to request for the same but in order to sue the above case the complainant has alleged such allegations against this opposite party. As per the rules followed by the 2nd opposite party , they have to deliver the vehicle only after receipt of the entire balance amount is very next day from the receipt of the same and therefore there was no deficiency in service in between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party.
5. Points for determination are:
- Whether the Complainant is the Consumer?
- Whether any deficiency in service is attributed by the opposite parties?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled for?
6. Point No.1:
On perusal of Ex.C1, this Forum observed that the complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- as advance / booking amount for purchasing a car from OP2 Volkswagen dealer, the Star Cars Private Ltd., Pondicherry on 12.10.2012. On 22.10.2012 the complainant had given the loan application form vide Ex.R3 to OP1 HDFC bank and loan was processed on necessary processing fees. Hence, the complainant is considered to be a consumer.
7. Point No.2:
This Forum has perused the complaint and the reply versions filed by the complainant and by the OPs. On the side of the complainant, CW1 was examined and Ex.C1 to C7 were marked. On the side of OP1, RW1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R9 were marked. The OP2 has endorsed that they have no oral evidence. Heard both sides and perused the documents.
8. The complainant submitted that he intended to purchase a car of his own before his marriage. As such, he approached OP2 the Volkwagen Car showroom the Star Cars Pvt Ltd., as per the idea given by the OP1 Bank Manager, HDFC, Pondicherry by name Mubarees on 12.10.2012. The complainant met the Manager of OP2, the Star Cars Pvt. Ltd., by name Steephen and expressed his willingness and his life time ambition of purchasing a car before his date of marriage. The Manager of the Car show room OP2 given a quotation and also requested to select the model and colour of the car. On the very same day, the Manager of OP2 company asked to book the car by paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- and he has given assurance that the vehicle will be delivered within 7 days vide Ex.C1. As such, the complainant also issued a cheque for Rs.50,000/- for booking the car. The complainant requested to deliver the car on 27.10.2012 evening before the time of his marriage reception, because his marriage scheduled at on 28.10.2012.
9. The complainant submitted that on 15.10.2012 he has signed in the loan application with OP1, the HDFC Bank, Pondicherry. The complainant submitted that he has also produced all the necessary documents needed by the OP1. The Manager of OP1 also stated that after two days, the loan will be sanctioned and he can take delivery of the vehicle from the OP2. Believing the words of the Manager of OP2, the complainant had arranged before the RTO, Pondicherry for registration of vehicle and number. Thereafter, the complainant approached the 2nd Opposite Party's Manager and verified whether the Delivery Order copy was received by the company. The second Opposite Party's Manager has stated that he has not received any Delivery Order from OP1 and assured that the car will be delivered on the date of reception. The complainant submitted that thereafter he approached the Branch Manager of the OP1, and enquired whether the loan amount was sent to the OP2 car company. The Sales Executive of OP2 one Dhivagar has stated that the amount was sent to the car company and to take delivery from the Watchman. The complainant stated that the Manager of the OP1 Bank played fraud upon him by stating false information that the Delivery Order was sent to the OP2 car showroom. On 27.10.2012 the OP2's Manager Steephen told that today only they have received the amount, but could not deliver the car since it was Saturday which was a holiday. The complainant's intention is only to purchase the car before the marriage. But the OP2 did not deliver the car in time as he requested. Therefore, the complainant submitted that he suffered loss that cannot be measured in terms of money because the OP1 and OP2 had not discharged their duties and they have caused deficiency in service.
10. It was submitted by the complainant that the Manager of OP2 company requested the complainant and his father to give a letter stating that at present, they are not able to purchase the car and if the real fact has sent to the main office, he will be terminated from his job, so the complainant had given a letter to OP1 and OP2 vide Ex.R1 dated 27.11.2012 and Ex.R2 dated 17.11.2012. The Manager of OP2 also assured that the amount paid will be returned within short span of time. The OP1 bank has retained the first instalment to the tune of Rs.19,465/- and collected 2nd instalment on 05.12.2017 and interest to the tune of Rs.8,721/-. On 18.02.2013 a cheque dated 13.12.2012 for a sum of Rs.45,000/- was received by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has given a letter dated 22.02.2013 vide Ex.C2 to OP1claiming damages for deficiency of service. Ex.C3 is the reply given by the bank to the complainant. Ex.C4 is the Advocate notice given by the complainant to OP2 and Ex.C5 is the acknowledgement card. Ex.C7 is the marriage invitation.
11. The OP1 alleged that the complainant approached the bank for availing a car loan and has completed the formalities of loan application only on 22.10.2012 and submitted on the same date. Admittedly, though the application for loan was received by the bank on 15.10.2012, but the completed application for loan was submitted by him only on 22.10.2012 vide Ex.R3. The loan was sanctioned by the bank and the bank issued the cheque in favour of OP2 on 26.10.2012 within four days. The OP1 submitted that the factum of marriage of the complainant and its connection to the purchase of car from the loan processed by OP1, Puducherry, does not correlate since the OP1 was not aware of the facts alleged by the complainant that the OP2 had given undertaking to deliver the vehicle to the complainant before the date of marriage of the complainant and no such undertaking was given by OP2 to the complainant. The OP1 submitted that there is no evidence in respect of the sufferings undergone by the complainant and also OP1 did not give any assurance for the disbursement of loan within a period of two days as claimed by the complainant. The claim is concerned only in respect of non-sanctioning of loan as expected by the complainant. But, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP1 in respect of period of disbursement of loan. There is no iota of truth that the facts of the marriage and delivery of car before the date of the marriage of the complainant was informed to the OP1. Even inspite of the allegation of dissatisfaction on the service of the bank by the complainant, he has obtained another car loan admittedly in the name of his Mother Shiyamala under loan account No. 24083677 dated 28.03.2013 and the complainant stood as a co-applicant for the same. Therefore, it should not be considered as deficiency in service on the part of OP1.
12. It is true that on perusal of records and evidence of complainant and OPs that the complainant had approached OP2 on 12.10.2012 and paid Rs.50,000/- as advance for purchasing a car. It is observed that the completed loan application was submitted by the complainant to OP1 only on 22.10.2012 even though the complainant has stated that he has given the loan application on 15.10.2012 and that the OP1 has given assurance that within two days, the loan will be sanctioned. It is further observed that as per the Proforma Invoice of OP2 dated 22.10.2012, the terms and conditions at point No.4 of Ex.R9, it is stated that 100% of payment to be made before delivery. Wherein, the OP2 has received the amount of loan only on 27.10.2012 Saturday. Since Saturday is holiday, he could not deliver the car in time and hence, the expectation of the complainant to deliver the vehicle before the date of marriage on 28.10.2012 is quite impossible and on such factual existence, the allegation of complainant that there was a deficiency of service by OP2 does not hold good. On perusal of OP1's side evidence and records, the complainant has given the completed loan application only 22.10.2012 and OP1 disbursed the loan on 26.10.2012 and it was credited on 27.10.2012 in the name of OP2. OP1 has arranged the loan within four days. The complainant admitted in his cross-examination by OP1 that he has not mentioned that the car has to be delivered within 27.10.2012. Hence, in view of the above said discussion, this Forum has found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as stated by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. This point is answered accordingly.
13. Point No.3:
In view of the discussions taken in point No.2, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed and this complainant is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Dated this the 21st day of June 2017.
- ASOKAN)
PRESIDENT
(V.V. STEEPHEN)
MEMBER
(D. KAVITHA)
MEMBER
COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:
CW1 28.08.2014 Rajaram
OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:
RW1 26.02.2015 Saravana Jothy
COMPLAINANT'S SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.C1 | 12.10.2012 | Photocopy of Sales Contract Form of OP2 company |
| Ex.C2 | 22.02.2013 | Photocopy of letter given by CW1 to OP1 Bank |
Ex.C3 | 02.03.2013 | Reply letter given by OP1 to CW1 |
Ex.C4 | 12.04.2013 | Copy of legal notice given by Counsel for CW1 to OP2 |
Ex.C5 | | Acknowledgement card |
Ex.C6 | 22.02.2013 | Photocopy of letter given by CW1 to OP1 Bank marked through RW1 |
Ex.C7 | 28.10.2012 | Marriage invitation of complainant |
OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:
Ex.R1 | 27.11.2012 | Photocopy of letter given by complainant to OP1 for cancellation of loan |
| Ex.R2 | 17.11.2012 | Photocopy of letter given by complainant to OP2 for cancellation of booking of car |
Ex.R3 | 22.10.2012 | Photocopy of Loan application Form of HDFC Bank |
Ex.R4 | | Photocopy of Agreement for Auto Loan |
Ex.R5 | 26.10.2012 | Photocopy of Demand Promissory Note |
Ex.R6 | 26.10.2012 | Photocopy of Post Dated Cheque Acknowledgement letter |
Ex.R7 | 26.10.2012 | Photocopy of Disbursal Report |
Ex.R8 | 27.04.2015 | Photocopy of Statement of Account issued by OP1 bank |
Ex.R9 | | Original of Ex.R4. |
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL
- ASOKAN)
PRESIDENT
(V.V. STEEPHEN)
MEMBER
(D. KAVITHA)
MEMBER
