BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2016
Date of institution: 08.01.2016
Date of Decision: 10.05.2016
Richa Gandhi d/o Shanti Lal Gandhi, resident of House No.173, Ekta Colony, Balongi, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. HDFC Bank Office, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager/Authorised signatory.
2. Manchanda TVS, Mohali, SCF No.49, Phase-5, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Ms. Kanchan Gandhi, authorised representative of the complainant.
Opposite Parties ex-parte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
- Refund Rs.94,680/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till refund.
- To pay her compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
The complainant purchased TVS Apache RTR 180 vehicle from OP No.2 on 31.05.2012 after getting it financed from OP No.1. An amount of Rs.22,500/- was paid by the complainant as down payment and loan of Rs.61,000/- was taken from OP No.1 which was to be paid in 36 monthly installments of Rs.2406/-. The complainant had paid 22 installments till 14.04.2014 within time and paid 8 installments to Mr. Harpreet Singh an Executive of OP No.1. Thus the complainant has paid total 30 installments out of 36. The last installment was paid by the complainant in December, 2014. On 29.01.2015 the executive of the OP No.1 forcibly took the custody of the motor cycle without giving any intimation to the complainant. After enquiry by the complainant, the complainant came to know that the motorcycle was further sold to some dealer of Amritsar for a sum of Rs.11,000/-. The complainant had paid Rs.94,680/- to the OP No.1. The complainant repeatedly visited the office of OP No.1 for taking possession of the motor cycle as she was ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs.14,436/- but the OP No.1 has failed to deliver the motorcycle to her till today. Thus, with these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. The OPs were duly served but inspite of service none appeared for them. Accordingly both the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.02.2016.
3. To succeed in the complaint, authorised representative of the complainant proved on record her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-3.
4. We have heard authorised representative of the complainant and gone through the pleadings and evidence on record.
5. The purchase of the motor cycle from OP No.2 against invoice dated 31.05.2012 has been proved by the complainant vide Ex.C-2. The perusal of invoice shows that the total sale price of the motor cycle in question was Rs.67,209/- plus other taxes and surcharges, and the total comes to Rs.76,450/-. Against the said sale consideration the complainant has paid Rs.22,500/- as down payment to OP No.2 and for the remaining amount arranged loan to the tune of Rs.61,000/- from OP No.1 vide Ex.C-3, i.e. the statement of loan account issued by OP No.1. As per the complainant, against the sanctioned loan of Rs.61,000/- and the same was disbursed to OP No.2 on 19.06.2012 as is evident from the details mentioned in Ex.C-3. Thus, in all the complainant has paid the total sale consideration to OP No.2 i.e. Rs.22,500/- plus Rs.61,000/-.
6. The motor cycle being under hire purchase with OP No.1, the complainant was to make 36 monthly equated installments of the principal as well as interest on loan, the total monthly installment being Rs.2406/-. In order to discharge her liability towards OP No.1, the complainant has repaid 24 loan installments from 19.06.2012 to 14.04.2014 directly to OP No.1 as receipt of the same has been reflected in the statement of account issued by OP No.1 i.e. Ex.C-3 total being Rs. 57,744/-. As per the complainant she has further repaid eight installments of loan to one Shri Harpreet Singh authorised signatory of OP No.1 as he had issued the receipts from 09.06.2014 to 15.12.2014, total being Rs.19,248/-. Receipts issued by Harpreet Singh authorised signatory of OP No.1 has been produced by the complainant during the course of arguments. The complainant having represented her case in person and the receipts were taken on record in the interest of justice. Thus, in all from 19.06.2012 to 15.12.2014, the complainant has repaid a total sum of Rs.86,992/- against the sanctioned loan of Rs.61,000/-. Thus, the total payment of Rs.86,992/- made to OP No.1 against the loan account of the motor cycle in question has been proved by the complainant.
7. As per the complainant the total loan of Rs.61,000/- was to be repaid by her in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.2406/- per month and thus the total repayment amount is Rs.86,616/- and against the said amount the complainant has already repaid Rs.86,992/-, an excess amount of Rs.376/-. Despite the fact that she has discharged her liability against the loan, OP No.1 has illegally taken over the possession of motor cycle from the complainant and upon enquiry by the complainant, it is learnt that the motor cycle has been sold by OP No.1 to somebody at the sale consideration of Rs.11,000/- without consent and association of the complainant. Thus, the allegation duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant, though without any corroborative evidence, has been proved on the basis of affidavit of the complainant i.e. the forcible dispossession of the motor cycle despite having received excess payment of Rs.376/- . The act of the OP No.1 is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice having been proved by the complainant. Thus, the complaint deserves to be allowed against OP No.1 and complainant deserves to be compensated.
8. Qua OP No.2, as is evident from the record, after down payment of Rs.22,500/- by the complainant and remaining amount having been received from OP No.1 by way of loan against hypothecation of motor cycle in question, OP No.2 has delivered the vehicle to the complainant and the complainant in the present complaint has no grievance against OP No.2. Therefore, complaint against OP No.2 is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
13. In view of above discussions, the complaint is allowed with against OP No.1 and is dismissed against OP No.2. OP No.1 is directed to:
(a) refund to the complainant excess amount received by it to the tune of Rs.376/- (Rs. Three hundred seventy six only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from 15.12.2014 i.e. the last date of receipt of payment by OP No.1, till actual payment within a period of thirty days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(b) to return to the complainant the motor cycle in question in defect free and road worthy condition to the satisfaction of the complainant within a period of 15 days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(c) If OP No.1 is not in a position to return the motor cycle in question to the complainant, in that eventuality it should refund to the complainant the total amount received by it i.e. Rs. 86,616/- (Rs. Eighty six thousand six hundred sixteen only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of receipt of installments by it, till actual payment, within a period of thirty days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(d) to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation within a period of thirty days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
May 10 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
