Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/84/2019

Bajaj Finance Ltd, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M. Vidya, And another - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. M.B. Gopalan Associates

29 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.S.KARUPPIAH         ... JUDICIAL MEMBER

             Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL … MEMBER

 

F.A. No.84 of 2019

(Against the Order, dated 20.12.2018, in C.C. No.1 of 2014, on the file of  the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

                                                    

                               Orders pronounced on:   29.03.2002

 

Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

rep. by its Manager,

68, West Ponnurangam Road,

R.S.Puram,

Coimbatore-641 002.                    … Appellant / 2^nd OP.

 

vs.

 

1. M.Vidya,

D/o.K.Mahnedran,

171, Poonga Nagar,

No.4, Veerapandi,

Coimbatore 641 019.                    … R1/Complainant

 

2.Sri Murugan Auto Works

having office near Eswaran kovil,

Periyanaickenpalayam,

Coimbatore-641 020,

Rep. by its Manager.                     … R2/1^st OP

 

             For Appellant           :  M/s.M.B.Gopalan

             For Respondent-1    :  M/s.V.Balaji

             R2, called absent.

This Appeal is coming up for hearing today and, after hearing the counsels for the contesting parties and upon perusing the materials available on record, this commission passes the following: 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.   (OPEN COURT)

 

             This Appeal has been filed as against the Order, dated 20.12.2018, passed by the DCDRF, Coimbatore, in C.C. No.1 of 2014, in allowing the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent herein, by directing, among other things, that the appellant/2^nd OP and the R2/1^st OP shall jointly and severally pay her Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused due to deficiency in service.

 

             2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the course of this order, as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

             In brief, the case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed before the District Forum, is as follows:-

             It is the case of the complainant, in brief, that she had purchased a Bike ‘Bajaj Discover Model’ bearing Registration No.TN-40 E-4080, from OP No.1, who had arranged financial assistance to the tune of Rs.38,000/- by an agreement with the 2^nd OP/Finance with the EMI at Rs.1,988/- for 24 months; that the Original Registration Certificate (in short RC) and a Duplicate Key of the vehicle were retained by both the OPs, as security towards the above loan; that the complainant  had paid the entire monthly instalments including various amounts charged by the 1^st OP towards penalty;  that, on completion of the loan instalments, the complainant had approached the 1^st OP to get the No-Due Certificate towards the loan, the Original RC and the Duplicate Key of the vehicle, but to her shock and surprise, the said OP demanded a sum of Rs.8,000/- as due towards the loan which the complainant refused to comply with; that, from the Financier/2^nd OP, she had obtained the Account Statement which clearly stated that the entire dues towards the loan was paid by her and that no further dues pending; that, while so, when she requested the 2^nd OP to issue the No-Due certificate for the loan, the said OP had asked her to approach  the 1^st Op for the same; that even after repayment of the entire principal with interest towards the loan, the OPs are not providing the documents and the duplicate key and further, they illegally collected from her a sum of Rs.1,760/- which they are bound to return; and that, when a legal notice, dated 07.10.2013, was issued seeking remedies for the deficiencies, the 2^nd OP gave an interim reply by merely stating that the matter was being looked into, without taking any step to comply with the request, hence, the complainant, by filing the complaint, sought, among other things, to direct the OPs to issue the No Due Certificate, return the Original RC/Key and for payment of compensation.

 

             3. The 1^st OP was set ex-parte before the District Forum and the 2^nd OP filed a version, wherein, among other things, it is stated that it is false to state that the complainant had entrusted the original RC of the vehicle with the 2^nd OP; that Annexure 10 submitted by the complainant would make it clear that the Original RC is with the 1^st OP and not with the present OP;  that the present OP did not collect any excess amount of Rs.1,760/- as alleged by the complainant; and that, due to lapse of time and non-receipt of the original RC from the 1^st OP, the complainant was not able to cancel the hypothecation from the records of the Transport Authority; and that the 1^st OP is willing to issue duplicate form-35 to the complainant on request, thus, there being no deficiency in service, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

             4  In order to prove the claim and counter-claim, both sides filed their respective proof affidavits and, while the complainant filed 10 documents as ExsA1 to A10, the 2^nd OP did not file any document.  The District Forum, after consideration, held that despite re-payment of the entire loan amount, the OPs failed to furnish the Original RC Book/duplicate Key to the complainant, thus, there is a clear deficiency in service and accordingly, by allowing the complaint, directed both the OPs to jointly and severally return the original RC/duplicate Key and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization and also costs of Rs.3,000/-, with further direction to pay both the sums within a period of two months from the date of the order, in default, liberty was given to the complainant to execute the order under Section 25 or 27 of the Amended Act, 2002.  Aggrieved thereby, the 2^nd OP has come up with the present Appeal.

 

             5. Heard the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

 

             6. There is no dispute that the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount and it is the assertive stand of the 2^nd OP that the RC Book/Duplicate Key are held by the 1^st OP and that is why, when the complainant approached them after repayment, they advised her to approach the 1^st OP.   When the 1^st OP, who is in custody of the documents and key, is liable to return the same, the question of joint liability will not arise.  Even before this Commission, the 1^st OP has not chosen to contest the proceedings. Hence, this Commission has no other option but to accept the case of the 2^nd OP.   Accordingly, any direction for return of the Original RC/duplicate Key can be issued only as against the 1^st OP and not the 2^nd OP.   Accordingly, the appeal has to allowed.

 

             7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, by directing the 1^st OP to pay the compensation and costs as ordered by the District Forum and also to return the Original RC/No Due Certificate/Duplicate Key of the vehicle, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.

      

 

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL    S.KARUPIAH                  R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                       JUDL. MEMBER           PRESIDENT.