Date of Filing: 30/07/2011

        Date of Order: 20/09/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated: 20^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 1411 OF 2011

Sampath. N,

Aged About 38 years,

Site No.63, 4^th Main, Hosakerehali BSK,

3^rd Stage, Bangalore-560 085.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri. A.Girishwara)                                          Complainant.

-V/s-

1. M/s. M.S.R Motors,

Rep. by its Partner D.R. Ravi,

No.548/B, 14^th Main,

BSK 1^st Stage, 50 ft Road,

Hanumanthanagar,

Bangalore-560 050.

2. M/s. Family Credit,

Rep. by its Manager,

Branch Office, 1015, 1^st Floor,

1^st Main, 4^th Block, Dr. Raj Kumar Road,

Rajajinagar (above Reebok showroom)

Bangalore.

Registered Office:

Family Credit Limited,

Technopolis, 7^th Floor Wing A,

Sector V salt lake, Bidhan Nagar,

Kolkata-700 091.                                                         Opposite parties.

BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties

Respondent No.1 to deliver Suzuki Access 125cc and pay damages a sum of Rs.25,000/- or refund the deposited amount of Rs.25,723/- along with interest to the complainant and also to settle the amount to Respondent No.2 to cancel the Agreement;

Direct the Respondent No.2 to handover the customer copy of executed agreement bearing no. 786261;

Direct the Respondent No.2 to hold the remaining EMI cheques to be presented for encashment till the Vehicle is been delivered to the complainant or direct the respondent No.1 to pay the EMI till the delivery of the said vehicle; and

For the costs and such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit to grant to the complainant in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;

are necessary:-

On 10.07.2010 the complainant went to the opposite party No.1 paid Rs.5,000/- and booked a new Suzuki Access 125 cc vehicle.  The opposite party No.1 introduced opposite party No.2 to the complainant as financier to avail the financial help and gave the EMI quotation.  Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.18,500/- on 26.03.2011 to the opposite party No.1.  The complainant availed financial assistance of Rs.46,000/- from the opposite party No.2 and executed an agreement on 22.04.2011, had given three blank cheques as surety and post dated cheques for EMI for the loan availed to the opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.1 after receiving the amount from the complainant was giving evasive reply for more than 12 months in deliver the vehicle.  The opposite party No.2 failed to hand over the customer copy of the executed agreement.  The opposite party No.2 presented the cheque No.881854 on 05.07.2011 and encashed it amounting to Rs.2,223/- the first EMI.  As the vehicle is not delivered this complaint is filed.

2(a).   In brief the version of the opposite party No.1 are:-

            The opposite party has registered the new vehicle in the name of the complainant on 18.07.2011 which bears registration No. KA-41-S-8256.  It has also paid the tax and the insurance premium of the vehicle on 18.07.2011.  After registration of the vehicle the opposite party waited for the complainant to handover the vehicle to him since he did not turn up.  Even telephoning to his mobile No.9844433366, he did not responded.  The delay is due to the above reason and not intentional.  The opposite party is handing over tax paid receipts, insurance policy, manual and the vehicle to the complainant today. 

2(b).   In brief the version of the opposite party No.2 are:-

            So for as opposite party No.2 is concerned the complainant is not a consumer nor this is a consumer dispute.  The complainant has submitted the loan application form on 22.04.2011 to this opposite party who after due verification and processing sanctioned the loan and an agreement was executed on 26.05.2011.  The complainant started repaying the loan but thereafter defaulted in making payments.  Accordingly the opposite party acted as per the repayment schedule in respect of the loan amount and recovered Rs.2,223/- through the cheque issued by the complainant.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.        To substantiate their respective cases the complainant and the second opposite party have filed their respective affidavits.  The first opposite party did not turn up.  The documents were filed by all the parties.  The arguments of the complainant and the second opposite party were heard since the first opposite party was absent.

4.        The points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 in not delivering the vehicle booked by the complainant?
2. Whether the complaint has brought against the second opposite party is maintainable?
3. What order?

5.        Our findings on the above points are:-

            Point (A) & (C):As per the final order

For the following:-

REASONS

POINT (A) to (C):-

6.        Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted/established fact that the complainant had booked a new Suzuki Access 125 cc vehicle with the opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.5,000/- on 10.07.2010 and he paid another sum of Rs.18,500/- to the first opposite party on 26.03.2011 and he had not paid any other amount in between.  It is also established the complainant made an application for loan with the opposite party No.2 on 22.04.2011.  After processing the same the opposite party No.2 had sanctioned certain loan on 01.06.2011 and the complainant executed an agreement in this regard and the complainant had to repay the same at EMI of Rs.2,223/- from 05.07.2011 till 05.06.2013.  It is also an undisputed fact that the opposite party No.1 encashed the cheque with respect to the first EMI.

7.        It is further seen that the opposite party No.1 had not delivered the vehicle to the complainant till date.  The opposite party No.1 has got the new vehicle registered on 18.07.2011 long after one year after the date of booking, about three and half months after paying further amount of Rs.18,500/- on 26.03.2011 and after a month after the loan was sanctioned and released to them by the second opposite party on 01.06.2011.  It has also registered the vehicle in the name of the complainant bearing No. KA-41-S-8256 and the vehicle is also insured and the road tax is paid.  The tax receipts, the insurance cover note, the owner’s manual are all produced by the first opposite party before this Forum and it is stated they are ready to handover the vehicle to the complainant.  That means the complainant had not paid the amount in full, Unless the amount is paid, nobody will deliver the vehicle to the complainant.  When the amount is paid the opposite party got the vehicle registered in the name of the complainant paid the tax and made the insurance.  It is for the complainant to go and collect the documents and vehicle.  It cannot be said there is any deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party in this regard.  The delay in delivering of the vehicle is caused by the complainant since he has not paid the money to the first opposite party.  The complainant had applied for loan when it was sanctioned the opposite party No.1 processed the papers and made the vehicle ready for delivery.  It is for the complainant to take it.

8.        Further when the loan was sanctioned and disbursed to the first opposite party by the second opposite party except recovering the EMI by the second opposite party there is nothing remained to it.  Hence it has encashed the cheque there is nothing wrong in it.  It cannot be a deficiency in service.  The amount has been given by the opposite party to the complainant and thus the complainant is not a consumer with respect to the opposite party No.2 nor it is a consumer dispute vis-à-vis second opposite party.  

9.        The complainant at prayer 15(b) has stated thus:-

“Direct the Respondent No.2 to handover the customer copy of executed agreement bearing No. 786261.”

That is to say the grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party No.2 has not given the customer copy of the agreement to him.  At Para-8 the complainant has stated thus:-

The Respondent No.2 was giving evasive reply for more than 3 months in spite of giving the customer copy of the complainant.

That is to say he admits that the customer copy has been given to him.  When it has been given to him, how can he say that it has not been given to him?  Even the opposite party has produced another copy of the agreement along with the version and it has been given to the complainant again.  Thus the grievance of the complainant is fully satisfied with respect to the customers copy.

10.      The other grievance of the complainant is that the second opposite party should not pay the amount to the first opposite party and the installment that has been recovered has to be refunded to him.  This is an untenable contention.  There is no Tripartite Agreement between the complainant, opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 interse.  The complainant has taken loan from the opposite party No.2 which has been paid to the opposite party No.1 and the complainant has to repay the amount to the opposite party No.2.  Hence under these circumstances we have to dismiss the complaint.  But however as the vehicle is ready, it has to be delivered to the complainant along with the document and the documents filed before this Forum may be collected by the complainant.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Dismissed.

2.        However the opposite party No.1 is directed to deliver the vehicle bearing No. KA-41-S-8256 to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order along with original RC and other documents.

3.        The documents filed by the opposite party No.1 before this Forum on 06.09.2011 i.e., Document No.1 to 4 shall be delivered to the complainant.

4.        Under these circumstances each parties shall bear their own costs.

5.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20^th  Day of September 2011)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT