Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/78/2014

N.Gopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

L&T Finance Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

S.Rajesh

11 Jun 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 27.01.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 11.06.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.78/2014

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

                                 

1. Mr. N. Gopal,

S/o. Mr. Narasaiah,

Old No.100, New No.48, 8^th Street,

Kamaraj Colony,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.

 

2. Mrs. G. Selvi,

W/o. Mr. N. Gopal,

 Old No.100, New No.48, 8^th Street,

Kamaraj Colony,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                       .. Complainants.                                               

        ..Versus..

 

1.  M/s. L & T Finance Ltd.,

L & T House,

Represented by its Manager

N.M. Marg,

Ballard Estate,

Mumbai – 400 001.

 

2. M/s. L & T Finance Ltd.,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

5^th Floor No.62, Ethiraj Salai,

(Commander in Chief Road),

Chennai – 600 105.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainants                : M/s. S. Rajesh & others

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. T.Dhanyakumar &

                                                                 another

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainants submit that they have purchased a vehicle Tata Vencher for a sum of Rs.6,03,245/-.  The 1^st complainant has paid an initial down payment of Rs.1,03,245/-.   The balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the opposite parties after due hypothecation on 27.08.2012.  The complainants submit is that the opposite parties’ official has not disclosed the nature of loan, quantum of EMI period of payment etc.  The complainants have paid a sum of Rs.14,400/- per month towards EMI without any default for 4 months.  The complainants submit that from February 2013, the complainants were not able to pay the EMI.  Since the complainant became a heart patient, he was not able to drive the vehicle also.  On 10.04.2013, the opposite parties also issued legal notice on 31.03.2013 claiming Rs.64,352/- whereas the complainant was default in payment of EMI only for February and March 2013. The complainants submit that since the complainants were not able to pay the EMI, the complainants surrendered the vehicle to the opposite parties on 12.04.2013 at 04.15 p.m.  The opposite parties has not informed about the sale of the vehicle but issued notice dated:24.10.2013 stating that the complainants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,32,561/- after deducting the arbitral award and the final amount is Rs.3,26,801/- which is totally false.  The complainants has paid a sum of Rs.57,600/- towards 4 EMIs and initial down payment of Rs.1,03,245/-.  While surrendering the vehicle, only 7293 kms was plied by the complainant.  The vehicle was in a good condition also.  The alleged resale value of Rs.2,05,000/- is absolutely false.  The opposite parties have not given any intimation to the complainants before selling the vehicle.   The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainants have availed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party.  The said amount shall be repaid in 48 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.14,400/- from 01.10.2012 to 01.09.2016.  The complainants have paid a sum of Rs.28,800/- towards 2 instalments.  Thereafter, the complainants miserably failed to pay the amount.  The allegation that payment of Rs.57,600/- towards 4 EMIs is absolutely false.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainants voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party on 12.04.2013. The opposite parties issued notice dated:15.04.2013 calling upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.5,42,409/- within 7 days failing which, the vehicle will be sold out “as is where is” basis.  Thereafter, the opposite parties sold the vehicle on 02.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- after adjusting the sale proceeds with the balance due amount and the complainants have to pay the balance amount.  For which, due arbitratory proceedings were initialled.  The sole arbitration of M. Sankaranarayanan dealt the matter and passed award on 21.03.2014 in Arbitration Proceedings No.LOS/RPD/ARB/5910 of 2010, the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,32,561/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainants have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B7 are marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainants are entitled the details of vehicle sale letter and return of the excess amount as prayed for?

 

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get return of the blank cheques issued to the opposite party with a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony as prayed for?

 

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written argument. Heard the opposite parties’ Counsel also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainants pleaded and contended that they have purchased a vehicle Tata Vencher for a sum of Rs.6,03,245/- from M/s. Popular Mega Motors (India) Ltd. (TATA MOTORS) commercial vehicle dealer on 17.08.2012 as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2..  The 1^st complainant has paid an initial down payment of Rs.1,03,245/-.  For the balance amount, the complainant has availed loan from the opposite parties.  Ex.B2 is the copy of Loan Agreement dated:22.08.2012 entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties.  The balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the opposite parties after due hypothecation on 06.09.2012 as per Ex.A8 (S).  Further the contention of the complainants is that the opposite parties’ official has not disclosed the nature of loan, quantum of EMI period of payment etc.  But Ex.A8 (S) is the loan sanctioned letter and enclosed the complainant repayment schedule shows the opposite parties have been disclosed the nature of loan, quantum of EMI period to the complainant at the time of availing the loan.  The complainants have paid a sum of Rs.14,400/- per month towards EMI without any default for 4 months.  But the complainants have not produced any record.  Further the contention of the complainants is that from February 2013, the complainants were not able to pay the EMI.  Since the 1^st complainant became a heart patient, he was not able to drive the vehicle also.  On 10.04.2013, the opposite parties also issued legal notice as per Ex.A11 claiming Rs.64,352/- whereas the complainants were default in payment of EMI only for February and March 2013.  But there is no record to prove the default period.  Further the contention of the complainants is that since the complainants were not able to pay the EMI, the complainants surrendered the vehicle to the opposite parties on 12.04.2013 at 04.15 p.m. as per Ex.A12.   The opposite parties has not informed about the sale of the vehicle but issued notice dated:24.10.2013 as per Ex.A14 stating that the complainants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,32,561/- after deducting the arbitral award and the final amount is Rs.3,26,801/- which is totally false.  The complainants has paid a sum of Rs.57,600/- towards 4 EMIs and initial down payment of Rs.1,03,245/-.  While surrendering the vehicle, only 7293 kms was plied by the complainant.  The vehicle was in a good condition also.  The alleged resale value of Rs.2,05,000/- is absolutely false.  No intimation of any kind given by the opposite parties before selling the vehicle.  No auction also conducted.  The manner of sale also has not been pleaded and proved in this case.   Further the contention of the complainants is that the alleged arbitrator award is not binding because, no notice of any kind received.  But the arbitrator award is very clear that the complainants after receipt of notice has not appeared and remained exparte.  Thereby, due arbitrator award was passed.  After passing the Arbitrator award or setting aside the arbitrator award, the complaint before Consumer Forum is unsustainable. 

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties would contend that admittedly, the complainants have availed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party.  Ex.B1 is the copy of Loan Agreement.  The said amount shall be repaid in 48 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.14,400/- from 01.10.2012 to 01.09.2016.  The complainants have paid a sum of Rs.28,800/- towards 2 instalments.  Thereafter, the complainants miserably failed to pay the amount.  The allegation that payment of Rs.57,600/- towards 4 EMIs is absolutely false.   The complainants have not produced any record also.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainants voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party on 12.04.2013. The opposite parties issued notice dated:15.04.2013 calling upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.5,42,409/- within 7 days Ex.A13 failing which, the vehicle will be sold out “as is where is” basis.  Thereafter, the opposite parties sold the vehicle on 02.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- as per Ex.B4 after adjusting the sale proceeds with the balance due amount.  The complainants have to pay the balance amount.  For which, due arbitratory proceedings were initialled. The sole arbitration of M. Sankaranarayanan dealt the matter and passed award on 21.03.2014 as per Ex.B6 in Arbitration Proceedings No.LOS/RPD/ARB/5910 of 2010, the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,32,561/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.  Filing this case after passing the arbitration award is unsustainable.  The opposite parties have taken suitable steps to execute the arbitration award. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

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

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of June 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	17.08.2012	Copy of Customer Order Form
Ex.A2	17.08.2012	Copy of Proforma Invoice
Ex.A3	27.08.2012	Copy of Free service eligibility
Ex.A4	27.08.2012	Copy of vehicle delivery acknowledgement note
Ex.A5	27.08.2012	Copy of Tax invoice
Ex.A6	27.08.2012	Copy of ICICI Lombard Insurance
Ex.A7	30.08.2012	Copy of R.C. Book
Ex.A8	06.09.2012	Copy of opposite party loan accept letter and repayment schedule
Ex.A9	26.09.2012	Copy of permit issued by Transport Department
Ex.A10	15.02.2013	Copy of lawyers notice issued by the opposite party
Ex.A11	10.04.2013	Copy of lawyers notice issued by the opposite party
Ex.A12	12.04.2013	Copy of the opposite party parking yard receipt
Ex.A13	15.04.2013	Copy of the opposite party letter Ref No.Rs/13-14/00071
Ex.A14	24.10.2013	Copy of opposite party letter Ref No.OTS/RPF/LOS/674
Ex.A15	11.11.2013	Copy of lawyer notice issued by the complainant
Ex.A16	18.11.2013	Copy of R net Tracking by India post
Ex.A17	27.12.2013	Copy of lawyer notice issued by opposite party

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1	22.08.2012	Copy of Loan Agreement entered into between the complainants and opposite parties
Ex.B2	22.08.2012	Copy of PDC letter issued by the 1st complainant
Ex.B3	30.07.2013	Copy Statement of Accounts
Ex.B4	15.07.2013	Copy of Offer & Price Justification
Ex.B5	19.08.2013	Copy of Profit & Loss statement
Ex.B6	21.03.2014	Copy of Award in Arbitration Proceedings No.LOS/RPD/ARB/5910 of 2014
Ex.B7		Copy of Certificate of Registration (2 Nos.)

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT