Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/40/2017

V.R.Kanniappan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hello cars Rep by Mr.Muthukrishnan - Opp.Party(s)

PM.Ramadoss

29 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  23.03.2017

                                                                Order pronounced on:  29.08.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL PRESIDENT

 

THIRU.D. BABU VARADHARAJAN B.Sc., B.L., :   MEMBER – I

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 29^th  DAY OF AUGUST 2018

 

C.C.NO.40/2017

 

 

V.R.Kanniappan,

S/o.Late Ramamoorthy Mudaliyar,

Residing at No.22/19, Anna Avenue,

Panchali Amman Koil Street,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Hello Cars,

Represented by Mr.Muthukrishnan,

No.56, 200 Feet Road,

(Opp.DRJ Hospital),

Kolathur,

Chennai – 600 099.

 

2.Mrs.K.Vijayalakshmi,

W/o.C.Karthikeyan,

No.470/7, West Wood Apartments,

North Main Road,

Anna Nagar West,

Chennai – 600 101.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 13.04.2017

Counsel for Complainant                      : PM.Ramadoss

 

Counsel for 1^st opposite party                        : Ex – parte (on 30.06.2017)

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                : M/s.Yogesh Kannadasan,

                                                                   G.P.N.Bharathy, B.Suresh

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,54,000/- and also to pay  a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant has approached 1^st opposite party and expressed his desire to purchase a Car (used Car) for his own purpose and the 1^st opposite party has made arrangement to inspect the various types of cars kept within the premises, of his trade. He selected the car namely Hundai Elantra (Red Colour) bearing Registration No.TN-01-AC-0549 Model 2006, and expressed his desire to purchase the same and the opposite party has fixed sum of Rs.1,80,000/- including commission for the car. The complainant paid the  sum of Rs.1,54,000/- including commission of  Rs.4,000/- in a lump sum to the 1^st opposite party, leaving balance of Rs.30,000/- it is agreed by both parties that this amount will be paid after the receipt of RC book and TO Form within 3 days there from the complainant went to the 1^st opposite party’s place on 11.01.2016 with the  balance amount of Rs.30,000/-. He demanded R.C. Book and TO Form and also necessary documents relating to the car but the opposite parties did not deliver the above said documents to the complainant & replied as the documents have not been received from the owner of the vehicle. Thus the opposite party had paid a foul play against the complainant. The 1^st opposite party told that within one week there from he would deliver the RC Book, TO Form and other necessary document relating to the purchased car to the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party is being owner of the car she is added as the party to this proceeding. At the time of inspection of the above vehicle (Car) he found Major repairs and it must be rectified by the opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party told the complainant that, if the complainant would carry out or rectify the repairs, the opposite party would pay the expenses incurred for the car and the 1^st opposite party paid Rs.52,000/- to the complainant toward the repair charges. Even on the day he has not delivered necessary documents to the complainant as demanded supra. Under the circumstances the  purchased car is kept in the  premises without running on the road. As the  opposite parties even without rendering co-operation regarding the documents he could not  drive the car on the road without RC Book, etc., Legal Notice was sent through his Lawyer to the 1^st opposite party under RPAD by which he demanded the above said documents. On 08.03.2017 the 1^st opposite party have received the said notice sent to him but he has  not chosen to send any reply & not complied his demand. His efforts to get the documents ended in vain. Each and every time when the complainant came to the place of business of 1^st opposite party, he himself voluntarily and deliberately disappeared after knowing the arrival of the complainant in his office. The complainant is suffering from heart diseases and he got an operation for bye pass surgery at Cheriayan Hospital 2 years ago. It is just and necessary for the complainant that a vehicle should be available for his medical test. The complainant has suffered  from mental agony and also physical strain. Each and every visit he used to go in call taxi  for which he has to spend a huge amount by way of travelling expenses till this date, from the date of purchase for the above said reason. Without RC book and TO Form no vehicle is allowed to run on the road. This fact the opposite parties had very much knowing fully well. Such being the case they have sold the car to the complainant without giving RC book and TO Form. This act of opposite parties are highly illegal and against principals of law of natural justice. Due to Negligence caused on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant incurred loss to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs for mental agony and Rs.5 lakhs for bodily strain in all 10 lakhs suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          Complaint is not maintainable as against the 2^nd opposite party either on facts or on law and the same is liable to be dismissed inlimini. The 2^nd opposite party sold her 2006 Model Hyundai Elantra car bearing Regn. No.TN.01.AC.0549 on 31.10.2014 to one Mr.Rajesh and also have a delivery note given by him indicating that he had paid an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- for the realization of the sale. Subsequently, when the 2^nd opposite party had questioned the above said Mr.Rajesh as to whether he has effected necessary changes in the RC Book, he has told her that he proposes to sell the said car to a third party.  Thereafter, she came to know that he has purchased her car as a middle man with a view to sell it to third parties for some profit and the 2^nd opposite party insisted that either the ownership should be changed in his name or the sale should be completed with the third party immediately.  He has promised that he will do so immediately. Thereafter, the said Mr.Rajesh  had in turn sold the car to one Mr.R.P.Varaprasad on 26.11.2014 and he received a delivery note from the said Mr.R.P.Varaprasad to the effect that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was realized. The said Mr.Rajesh has produced her the delivery note indicating that the car was sold to the above said Mr.R.P.Varaprasad, which also discloses that the original RC Book and the transfer form were handed over to him. When facts so, the 2^nd opposite party has received a notice that she had been impleaded as the 2^nd opposite party on the ground that she is the owner of the above said car and she is liable to pay along with the 1^st opposite party . This opposite party has verified with the Registration Office and she was made aware that the ‘RC’ is transferred in the name of Mr.R.P.Varaprasad. Subsequently, she has initiated further steps to collect details with regard to the above said Mr.R.P.Varaprasad with Mr.Rajesh as to whether any irregularity took place. However, she was not in a position to collect any details from him. Though the fact remains that the ownership of the car was transferred in favour of Mr.R.P.Varaprasad through Mr.Rajesh immediately after the sale of the said car to him, she was not in a position to gather further particulars about the role of the 1^st opposite party as well the sale said to have been taken place  by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the complainant and could not collect all the details immediately. The opposite party has not violated any rules and there is no deficiency in service as far as she is concerned in respect of the complainant. When facts stand so, it is alleged that the 1^st opposite party had sold the above said car to the complainant on 08.01.2016 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000/-. It is not  known when the 1^st opposite party had purchased the car from the above said Mr.R.P.Varaprasad and sold to the complainant inasmuch as the ‘RC’ stands in his name. She is not the owner of the car since 2014. Infact, the complainant has chosen to send notice only to the 1^st opposite party which itself shows that she is in no way connected with the transactions and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

          3. The 1^st  opposite party  called absent and he was set ex-parte on 30.06.2017.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant has purchased Hyundai  Elantra car of Model 2006 bearing registration No TN-01-AC-0549from the  1^st   on 08.01.2016. 1^st opposite party  is doing business of purchasing and selling second hand cars in the name of “Hello Cars” for an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- including commission. The 2^nd  opposite party  was the owner of the car.  Initially the complainant paid Rs.1,54,000/- including the commission amount of Rs.4,000/- to 1^st opposite party  leaving  the balance of Rs.30,000/- as agreed by both of them and to pay the  balance amount  after the receipt of RC book and TO Form within 3 days, the receipt of the advance amount is Ex.A1.

6. After three days, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party  to pay the balance amount and to receive the RC & TO Forms, he again sought for time extension to a week. During the inspection of the car, some mistakes were found out in the car and it was agreed by the 1^st opposite party  to pay for the repair charges, if repaired by the complainant.   Accordingly, Rs.56,000/- was paid by the 1^st opposite party  to the complainant. Having waited for such a long time complainant had issued a lawyer notice on 7.03.2017 in Ex.A2 and the postal acknowledgement is Ex.A3. No reply has been received by the complainant.

        7.  The complainant states that he is a Heart patient and undergone bye pass surgery and frequent check-up is necessary for him, for which he is unable to use the purchased car. The 1^st  opposite party  had not appeared before this forum to answer the complaint,  & was set ex-parte. Therefore the claim of the complainant is proved by filing the necessary documents. It was not disproved by 1^st opposite party  and so far  as the contention against 1^st opposite party  is to be accepted by this forum as proved by the complainant.

            8. So far as the 2^nd opposite party  is concerned, she admits the ownership of the car but she sold the car to one Mr.Rajesh on 31-10-2014 for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. Mr.Rajesh acted as a Middleman he  inturn sold it to one Mr.Varaprasad and the delivery notes are marked as Ex.B1 and B2. Ex.B3 is the RC stands the name Varaprasad and the date of registration was 11.08.2017 as per the extract filed along with RC copy.

9. As per the delivery notes submitted in Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and also the extract in Ex.B3 proves that the 2^nd opposite party  is not the owner of the vehicle as on date of filing the complaint. The RC copy of 2^nd opposite party  submitted by the complainant in Ex.A4, and the subsequent document of  Insurance premium in Ex.A5, policy in Ex.A6  and life tax in Ex.A7 would have been extended in the  name of 2^nd opposite party  since the name transfer in RC has  not been done. Therefore the 2^nd opposite party  has not violated any rules. The complainant has only issued the legal notice to 1^st opposite party . The complainant has not proved the deficiency of service against 2^nd opposite party   and this forum is of the view that there is no deficiency on the part of 2^nd opposite party and the claim against 2^nd opposite party  is liable to be dismissed.

 

10. POINT NO:2

 The complainant had filed Ex.A8 to prove his heart ailment. There is every opportunity for the complainant to utilize the call taxi facilities to reach the Hospital and he would not have opportunity to utilize the purchased vehicle without having  RC and Insurance due to the deficiency in service by the 1^st op. Therefore as discussed above 1^st  opposite party has committed deficiency in service and he is liable to take back the car and to pay the price of the car as purchased i.e. Rs.1,54,000/- and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss and mental agony besides Rs.5,000/-for costs. The points 1 & 2 are answered accordingly. In respect  of the 2^nd opposite party the complaint  is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The  1^st Opposite Party is directed to take back the car from the complainant and also to pay a sum of  Rs.1,54,000/-( Rupees one lakh  and fifty four thousand only) to the complainant, and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards the loss and mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.

The order shall be complied within 6 weeks and the  above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 29^th day of August 2018.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.01.2017                   Advance receipt of 1^st opposite party

Ex.A2 dated 07.03.2017                   Legal Notice to the opposite parties

Ex.A3 dated 08.03.2017                   Postal ACK duly signed by the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A4 dated 11.10.2006                   RC Book stands in the name of 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A5 dated 20.07.2015                   Insurance stands in the name of 2^nd opposite party

                                                    in respect of the vehicle

 

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Certificate cum policy schedule in the name of 2^nd

                                                    opposite party

 

Ex.A7 dated 11.10.2006                   Life tax stands in the name of 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A8 dated 18.10.2013                   Discharge summary medical report of complainant

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 31.10.2014                   Delivery note

 

Ex.B2 dated  26.11.2014                  Delivery note

 

Ex.B3 dated  NIL                    RC Book extract

 

 

 

                                                                                     

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT