Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/412/2011

Chintapalli Buchi Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Pydi Papa Rao

08 Jun 2015

ORDER

Reg. of the Complaint:22-10-2011

                                                                                                                                      Date of Order:08-06-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

MONDAY, THE 08^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.412/2011

 

BETWEEN:

Sri Chintapalli Butchi Reddy S/o Satyanarayana Reddy,

Hindu, aged 35 years, r/at D.No.7-1-54/1,

East Point Colony, Visakhapatnam-17.

…Complainant

AND:

1.The Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank Limited, RAPG Division,

A & B Block, 2^nd floor, Ramnagar,

Visakhapatnam-530 003.

2.The Regional Manager, ICICI Bank Limited,

REPO Wing, Plot No.12, ICICI Tower No.3,

North Wing, 5^th floor, Gachibowli,

Hyderabad-530 032.

3.The Chairman cum Managing Director,

ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers,

South Tower, 4^th floor, Bandra – Kurla Complex,

Mumbai-400 061.

…Opposite Parties

This case coming on 26-05-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI PYDI PAPA RAO, Advocate for the Complainant, and of SRI U.S.V.PRASAD, Advocate for the Opposite Parties, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

ORDER

 (As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)                                                                              

1. The Complainant filed the present complaint against the OPs,  directing the OPs to deliver the relevant documents i.e., 1) no objection certificate, 2) Invoice Papers, 3) Transfer Forms duly signed by transferer and transferee 4) PAN Card of the vehicle owner 5) Copy of the driving license of the vehicle owner and 6) Life Tax Receipt and other relevant papers; if the OPs failed to aforesaid documents to direct the OP to return the deposit amount of Rs.2,82,600/- 2) Rs.50,000/-  which was paid to the Toyato show room and 3) Rs.1,00,000/- incurred towards the said vehicle repairs paid to M/s Eswar Automobile Work Shop, total of Rs.4,32,600/- along with interest  at 24% p.a, as alternative relief  and direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- towards Damages/compensation and with costs.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the 1^st OP is the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, RAPG Division, Visakhapatnam and 2^nd OP is the Regional Manager, REOP Wing, Hyderabad  and the 3^rd Respondent is their Managing Director and he is an Auction Purchaser of the 1^st OP since 3 years and purchased nearly 200 vehicles in the auction conducted by the Bank from time to time and he paid nearly 3 crores Business but he never faced any trouble except this loan account No. LARJY00002669410 of one P.Krishnaveni of the ICICI  Loan Customer and he participated in the off-line auction on    22-02-2010 and became highest bidder for purchase of Toyota since the said veicle was not registered in Transport Authority, the vehicle was not allotted permanent number by them. He purchased the vehicle in Rs.2,82,600/- and deposited the said amount in the first OP Branch for which they issued a receipt dated 6-8-2010 after receiving payment, the bank issued vehicle delivery letter dated 13-08-2010 accordingly after furnishing all formalities the Godown Manager delivered the vehicle to him on 4-9-2010 but without relevant documents such as no objection certificate, Invoice Papers, transfer forms duly signed by the tranferer and the transferee,Pan Card of the vehicle owner copy of the driving licence of the vehicle, sun life tax receipts and other relevant papers  for the transfer of the ownership rights but the Bank Authorities did not deliver those documents in spite of repeated documents made by him.
3. Though he did not put the vehicle on road due to non supply of those documents as a result, he sustained huge loss i.e., due to the negligence on the part of the OPs. He also stated that he incurred an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards repair charges believing the OP authorites would give relevant papers and further he paid Rs.50,000/- towards Toyoto Show Room towards demurrage charges without valid documents, he did not bring the vehicle on road, hence, this complaint. After issuance of legal notice.
4. The case of the OPs, denying all the materal averments of the complaint is that one Pedapudi Krishna Veni approached them for financial assistance of Rs.15,00,000/-  for the purchase of Toyoto and they sent the same on 12th October, 2014 as she failed to pay the amount as per the agreement, they have sold away the vehicle in auction.  The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable under law. They further admitted that the complainant has purchased nearly 200 vehicles which goes to show that the the complainant comes under the commercial trading of repossessed vehicle wherein the complainant buys repossessed assets in auction by bidding and resells to his customers for a margin and it is also an admitted fact that they had rendered service without any deficiencies in more than two hundred vehicles  sale transactions except the allelged one. They have not aware whether the complainant has purchased the said vehicle in auction for his personal use as alleged. He used to resale the vehicle purchased for profit which admittedly commercial in nature. Therefore, he can not be framed as a consumer as defined under the act.
5. They admitted that the complainant became the highest bidder for the purchase of Toyota and deposited the amount of Rs.2,82,600/- in which the OP was passed the sale consideration was deposited by one Mr.P.Kanaka Reddy on behalf of the complainant as per its authorization in respect of the deposit of sale consideration receiving documents, the complainant is aware about non registration of vehicle before bidding and got the vehicle registered before transport authority is the responsibility of the customer and they issued delivery letter dated 13-08-2010 by addressing the Godown Manager to deliver the vehicle and accordingly it was delivered on 4-9-2010. Therefore, the question of the bank authorities they have not delivered the vehicle with the document as sought for is false. They have handed over No due certificate  and RO forms.
6. Though they never undertook to supply the alleged documents as a goodwill gesture, they issued a letter dated December, 13^th 2010 to M/s Radha Madhav Toyato Auto Limited Vijayawada to issue transfer papers and invoice papers of the said vehicle but Mr.Kanaka Reddy in order to help the complainant to arrange for transfer. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part. For all these reasons, the complaint file by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
7. To prove the case on behalf of the complainant, he filed his affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A9. On the otherhand, on behalf of the OPs, they filed their affidavit and got marked Exhibits B1 to B6. Both parties filed their respective written arguments.
8. Exhibit A1 is the Payment Receipt dated 06-08-2010, Exhibit A2 is the Delivery Letter issued by the Respondent Bank, dated 13-08-2010, Exhibit A3 is the Receipt issued by M/s Eswar Automobilie Work Shop, dated 20-10-2010, Exhibit A4 is the Legal Notice, dated 22-01-2011, Exhibit A5 is the Reply Letter, dated 24-02-2011, Exhibit A6 is the Postal Acknowledgement, dated 28-01-2011, Exhibit A7 is the Postal Acknoweldgement from OP No.3, dated 27-01-2011, Exhibit A8 is the Postal Acknoweldgement from the Respondent no.2 and Exhibit A9 is the Telephone Bill.
9. Exhibit B1 is the Letter addressed to the ICICI Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam, dated 05-08-2010, Exhibit B2 is the declaration given by the complainant towards purchase of repossessed assets, Exhibit B3 is the letter addressed to the OP, dated 05-08-2010, Exhibit B4 is the Leeter addressed to the godown Manager by the OP, dated 13-08-2010, Exhibit B5 is the Letter addressed to the Regl. Transport Office by the OP alogn with Form no.35, dated 31-08-2010 and Exhibit B6 is the Letter addressed to Radha Madhav Toyota Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada, dated 13-12-2010.

10.Both parties filed their respective written arguments.

11.Heard oral arguments from both sides.

Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

    12. The first contention of the Learned Counsel for the OP is that the complainant is a business man purchased the vehicle in question for doing his commercial activity, therefore, he does not fall under the purview of consumer, therefore, the complaint filed by complaint is not maintainable. On the other hand, the case of the complaint is that he purchased the vehicle in question exclusively for the purpose of for his personal purpose  and as the OP failed to give the necessary papers  after receiving consideration, he comes within the purview of Section 2(1) (d) of CP Act.  The case record clearly goes to show when the complainant filed the present complaint, it was returned how this complaint is maintainable as the complaint has been purchasing the vehicle in auction and selling them to the general public on higher returns which transaction  is a commercial in nature and on that the complainant endorsed that he purahsed the vehicle  in  his personal use as such he is a consumer.  The averments in Para C of the complaint clearly goes to show that the complainant is the auction purchaser of the ICICI Bank since 3 years and purchased nearly 200 vehicles in the auction conducted by them from time to time and he did nearly 3 crores business and he never faced any trouble except this Auctioin.

13.     On perusal of the section 2 (1) (d) of Consumar Protection Act, it is evident that after the amendment of the definition of the consumer by the Act 62 of 2002, the  persons availing services for any commercial purpose are excluded from the definition of “consumer”. Since the complaint averments clearly goes to show that the complaint is in the habit of purchasing auction vehicles and doing commercial business, we are of the considered view that the vehicle in question was also purchased for commercial activity. Therefore,  the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.

14.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the  8^th day of June, 2015.                                   

 

   Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT       

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A1	06-08-2010	Payment Receipt	Original
A2	13-08-2010	Delivery letter issued by the Respondent Bank Authorities	Photocopy
A3	20-10-2010	Receipt issued by M/s Eswar Automobile Bank	Original
A4	22-01-2011	Legal Notice	Office copy
A5	24-02-2011	Reply Letter issued by OP3	Original
A6	28-01-2011	Postal Acknowledgment	Original
A7	27-01-2011	Postal Acknoweldgment	Original
A8		Postal Acknoweldgement	Original
A9		Telephone Bill	Original

 

For the Opposite Parties:-  

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B1	05-08-2010	Letter addressed to the ICICI Bank Ltd.,	Attested copy
B2	-	Declaration given by the complainant	Attested copy
B3	05-08-2010	Letter addressed to the OPs	Attested copy
B4	13-08-2010	Letter addressed to the Godown Manager	Attested copy
B5	31-08-2010	Letter addressed to the Regl. Transport Office by the OP alogn with Form No.35	Attested copy
B6	13-12-2010	Letter addressed to Radha Madhav Toyato Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada	Attested copy

 

   Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT