Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/106/2016

Mr.Prabu.C - Complainant(s)

Versus

KLN Auto mobiles (P) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B.Diva Karan

30 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  27.05.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  25.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 25^th    DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.106/2016

 

 

Mr. Prabu C.

S/o Mr.C.Chinnasamy,

Residing at No.24/25,

Tass Industrial Estate,

Ambattur, Chennai – 98.

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.The Manager (Showroom), KLN Automobiles (P) Ltd., Authorised Dealer for Bajaj Auto Ltd., No.T98, 3rd Avenue, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040.   2.The Manager (Finance), Bajaj Finance Ltd., No.T98, 3rd Avenue, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040.                               ……Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  14.07.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. B.Divakaran

Counsel for opposite parties                    : Ex - parte

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY MEMBER  TMT.T.KALAIYARASI,  B.A.B.L.,       

            This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

            The Complainant wanted to purchase a Bajaj Avenger 220 Street Bike from the 1^st Opposite Party who is the authorized dealer for Bajaj auto limited. The price of the bike quoted by him is at Rs.99,557/-.  The Complainant wanted to enquire about the finance/loan options and was referred to the 2^nd Opposite Party who was functioning within the 1^st Opposite Party showroom and based on Complainant’s requirement the 2^nd Opposite Party have given a quote whereby the Complainant would have to make a down payment of Rs.50,447/- and  the balance amount of Rs.49,110/- would be financed by Bajaj Finance Ltd., on a monthly equated installments of Rs.4928/- for a period of 12 months. Under this scheme a sum of Rs.10,026 would be the interest on the said loan. The 1^st Opposite Party informed the Complainant that if he book the vehicle on the same day, they could arrange the vehicle and deliver within 10 days. Hence the Complainant paid token advance of Rs.1,000/- on 26.01.2016 and booked the vehicle and also signed the loan application form with the 2^nd Opposite Party for processing loan. The Complainant paid balance amount of Rs.49,447/- on 29.01.2016 totally amounting to Rs.50,447/- inclusive of advance amount. The 1^st Opposite Party advised him to take delivery of the vehicle on 01.02.2016.  On 01.02.2016 the Complainant calling the 1^st Opposite Party showroom, there was no response from him and finally on 04.02.2016 he was called upon from the Opposite Parties to take delivery of the vehicle. When the Complainant and his relative went to the showroom to take the delivery of the vehicle, the 1^st Opposite Party staff informed him that they could not deliver the vehicle, as the brake test, engine condition and test drive was not  completed. Since the Complainant insisted for delivery, the 1^st Opposite Party delivered the vehicle which was kept for display. When he sought for the loan sanction letter from the 2^nd Opposite Party he was advised to collect when he brings the vehicle for registration in 3 days. Without undergoing the above test, the 1^st Opposite Party delivered the display vehicle is at his fault. Though the 1^st Opposite Party assured that the vehicle registration will be done in 3 days he did not do so. The Complainant called the 1^st Opposite Party to register the vehicle for several days however the same was not done. Finally the 1^st Opposite Party advised the Complainant to bring the vehicle for registration on 19.02.2016. The Complainant applied leave for his office and waited for the whole day in the show room the vehicle was not registered and gave evasive reply. Likewise he was waiting repeatedly on 25.02.2016, 29.02.2016 and 02.03.2016 and however the vehicle was not registered and finally the vehicle was registered on 03.03.2016, allotting Registration No.TN13E0316. Thus the 1^st Opposite Party dragged one month time for registration of the vehicle and thereby the Complainant lost his leave, money etc and thereby he has suffered.

          2. The repayment of loan starts only after registration of the vehicle. However the 2^nd Opposite Party presented the cheque for the 1^st installment of Rs.3,720/- on the same day came for collection from the Complainant banker. Though the 1^st Opposite Party received Rs.50,447/- by way of down payment,  a sum of Rs.26,802/- was credited towards the down payment and the balance amount had been misappropriated without the Complainant knowledge which clearly shows the Opposite Parties are indulged in unfair trade practice. On verifying the RC Book he found that the hypothecation vehicle has been done in favour of Bajaj Finance Limited for the period 03.03.2016 to 02.03.2031 which has no relevance to the loan amount nor the period of loan has been availed by the Complainant. The Complainant wanted for repayment of loan only for 12 installments. The hypothecation for a huge period endorsed in the RC Book establishes the deficiency on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party. Further the vehicle while driving the engine was stopped and even after two services done by the 1^st Opposite Party, the defect was not rectified. Therefore the Complainant after issuing legal notice filed this Complaint for replacement of defective vehicle; direct the 2^nd Opposite Party to intimate the RTO about the actual loan availed and to remove the same in the RC Book and also compensation for mental agony with   costs of the Complaint.  

3. Though the Opposite Parties received notice, they did not appear on 16.08.2016 and hence the Opposite Parties called absent and set Ex-parte.

          4. The Complainant had filed his proof affidavit and documents. Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked on behalf of the Complainant.

          5. The Complainant had also come forward with written argument and oral argument of the Complainant was heard.

6. 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?

7. POINT NO :1

The Complainant wanted to purchase Bajaj Avenger 220 Street Bike from the 1^st Opposite Party who is the authorized dealer for Bajaj auto limited. The price of the bike quoted by him is at Rs.99,557/- which is evidenced under Ex.A1 estimation slip. The Complainant made payment of Rs.50,447/- under Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 by way of cash towards the part consideration of the vehicle to the 1^st Opposite Party and the balance amount paid by the 2^nd Opposite Party/Financier by way of loan. The vehicle was delivered by the 1^st Opposite Party on 04.02.2016 and the same was registered on 03.03.2016 assigning the Registration Number TN 13E 0316.

          8. Though the Complainant claimed replacement of vehicle in the 1^st prayer the same was given up making an endorsement on 24.10.2016.

          9. According to the Complainant there is one month delay has been caused to register the vehicle and due to that he had applied several days leave and waited for registration and also spent money on those days and thereby the 1^st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service and caused loss to the Complainant. The Complainant specifically alleged that he was asked to come for registration on 19.02.2016, 25.02.2016, 29.02.2016 and 02.03.2016 and on all those days the vehicle was not registered and finally it was registered only on 03.03.2016. There is no contra evidence on behalf of the 1^st Opposite Party.    Even for the legal notice issued to this Opposite Party he has not replied. Hence the above contention of the Complainant is accepted and we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party registered the vehicle after one month delay is amounts to Deficiency in Service on his part.  

          10. Admittedly the 2^nd Opposite Party financed loan to the Complainant for purchase of the vehicle. Ex.A1 & Ex.A8 evidences that the Complainant agreed to repay the loan amount of Rs.59,364/- at the rate of Rs.4,947/- as EMI in 12 months. However in the Ex.A7 RC Book the hypothecation endorsement made by the registering authority for the period 03.03.2016 to 02.03.2031 is against the documents Ex.A1 & Ex.A8.  The above endorsement of hypothecation period 03.03.2016 to 02.03.2031 endorsed by RTO only on the information furnished by the 2^nd Opposite Party/Financier. If any one pays the installment for longer period, the loanee has to repay interest more. The Complainant in this case wants to finish of the loan in 12 months. Therefore furnishing wrong period of EMI’s to the RTO and same was endorsed in the RC Book is deficiency on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party.

11. Therefore, as discussed above we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 has committed in service and accordingly this point is answered.

12. POINT NO:2

          We held that the 1^st Opposite Party committed deficiency in Service in respect of registration of vehicle belatedly after a period of one month. Even after issuing notice there is no reply from the 1^st Opposite Party.  The Complainant has been asked to come for 4 days to register the vehicle and the same was not done and only on the 5^th time i.e on 03.03.2016 the vehicle was registered. During the above days the Complainant has availed leave from his office and also spent money for those days. Due to such harassment made by the 1^st Opposite Party clearly establishes that the 1^st Opposite Party is negligently acted in registering the vehicle and such act caused mental agony to the Complainant is accepted. Therefore for such negligent act and mental agony, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the Complainant is justifiable.

          13. As far as the 2^nd Opposite Party is concerned, he had furnished wrong period of hypothecation to the RTO and the same was endorsed by him in the RC Book.  Such a wrong entry has to be removed from the RC Book and for the same necessary direction has to be issued to the 2^nd Opposite Party to inform the RTO to remove the same. Further furnishing wrong hypothecation period to the RTO is negligent act of the 2^nd Opposite Party and such act caused mental agony to the Complainant is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.10, 000/- as compensation to him, besides a sum of Rs.5, 000/- has to be paid by Opposite Parties to the Complainant towards litigation expenses.  

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each towards compensation for mental agony to the Complainant, besides a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) each   towards litigation expenses. (Total sum of Rs.25,000/-)  The other relief sought in the Complaint is dismissed.

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 25^th  day of October 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 26.01.2016                   Estimation Slip

Ex.A2 dated 26.01.2016                   Cash receipt

Ex.A3 dated 29.01.2016                   Cash receipt

Ex.A4 dated 27.01.2016                   Tax invoice

Ex.A5 dated 27.01.2016                   Debit note

Ex.A6 dated 04.02.2016                   Vehicle delivery chalan

Ex.A7 dated 03.03.2016                   RC book

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     Second Estimation Slip

Ex.A9 dated 29.03.2016                   Proposal Cancellation Mail acknowledged by 2^nd

                                                   Opposite Party

 

Ex.A10 dated NIL                             Copy of the Schedule or repayment

Ex.A11 dated 04.04.2016                 Legal Notice

Ex.A12 dated 06.04.2016                 Acknowledgement cards

Ex.A13 dated 21.05.2016                 Service Cash Bill

Ex.A14 dated 11.06.2016                 Service Cash Bill

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT