Adv.for the complainant - Self.
Adv.for the O.P - S.Mishra, B.Sathpathy
Date of filing of the case – 30.06.2016
Date of order - 15.03.2017
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a Tata BOLT XE-75PS 1.3. Q Jet BSIV car from the OP.No.1 with the financial assistance of OP.No-2 and paid Rs.40, 000/- on the first date & Rs, 1,09,000/- on subsequent date in cash to OP. No-1 towards down payment & for documents and registration and after payment the car was delivered to the complainant by the OP. No.1. Since TATA company rejected the loan application of the complainant the OP.No-2 agreed to sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the complainant which will be deposited directly before the OP.No-1. The complainant alleges that, although he had completed all the formalities and deposited the required charges, he has not yet been provided with the Registration certificate , which amounts to negligence of the OPS. and hence lastly he had sent an Advocate notice . But the OP. No-1 after receipt of the said notice sent an e-mail demanding outstanding dues of Rs.24,000/-. Alleging harassment the complainant has preferred this case before this Forum.
2. Although notice has been served on Op3, nether he appears nor files his written version . Op4 files an affidavit supporting the case of the complainant. O.P.No:1&2 contested the case by filing their written version separately. The OP. No.1 admitted the purchase of the vehicle and submitted that, after deducting the discounts, the cost of the vehicle was Rs.586152/- including all charges and since the financer has issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.4,35,150/- the vehicle has not been registered for wants of Rs.54302/- from the complainant . The O.P.No:1 denied to have received Rs.40,000/- from Jayanta kesh and averred that he had received Rs. 96000/-from the complainant the OP.1 claims no deficiency is service on his part as the complaint fails to pay the required amount for registration of the vehicle.
3. In his written version the OP No.2 averred that, on the request of the complainant the OP. No.2 sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- in favor of the complainant for purchase a TATA BOLT vehicle from OPNo:1 and accordingly after executing a loan –cum- hypothecation agreement, the Op2 after deducting the documents and processing charges of Rs.14,850/- had paid Rs.4,35,150/- to OP No: 1 for delivery of the vehicle . The OP. No-2 further averred that the ownership of the hypothecated vehicle vest with the financer and hence there is no reason for the complainant to file this case. The OP. No-2 claims dismissal of the case.
4. Heard both the parties. Perused the pleadings and documentary evidence available on record. It appears from the material available on record that, the complainant wants to purchase a Tata Bolt car from the OP No. 1 with the financial assistance of TATA company , but since TATA company has rejected his loan application, the OP. No- 1 with the assistance of OP. No- 3 make arrangement for a car loan from OP No- 2. The OP No- 2 agreed to finance the car loan to the complainant and after executing a loan –cum-hypothecation agreement had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.4,50.000/- in favor of the complainant which was payable to Op No:1 directly by the OP. No-2 .
5. In his written version the OP. No 2 admitted that, he had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- but he had paid Rs. 4,35,150/- to OP.No-1. It is the say of the OP. No-2 that, he had deducted Rs. 14,850/- from the loan amount towards personal accident cover, health insurance cover, life insurance and documents processing charges . There is no evidence on record to show that, this fact was intimated to the complainant and those documents were handed over to the complainant. When there is any alteration in the agreement, it must be with the consent of the complainant. Therefore the deduction of Rs. 14,850/- by the Op2 from the loan amount is without any evidence and the same cannot be said to be fair and the act of the OP. No-2 is illegal.
6. It is seen from the Retail invoice issued by the op No: 1 that , after verification of the hypothecation agreement from Cholamandal Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. he had delivered the car to the complainant. It is also seen that, the O.P. No: - had supplied the insurance paper to the complainant at the time of delivery of the car, but has not taken any step for registration of the vehicle before the R.T.A. The Op No:1 is under obligation to registered the vehicle by the time delivery. The Op. No.1 had took a plea that, for wants of necessary charges, the vehicle has not been registered. There is no evidence either by way of affidavit or otherwise to show that, the Op No: 1 has demanded the said charges to the complainant at any point of time. Only after receipt of a Advocate notice the Op No: 1 has sent an e- mail demanding charges. Therefore non- registration of the vehicle is a negligent act on the part of Op No: 1 and the Op No:1 has adopted unfair trade practice. The complainant cannot run his vehicle without registration and hence the Op No : 1 has failed to discharge its Obligation.
7. With these facts & material available on record, the conduct of the O.ps seems to be unfair and is a mere harassment to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to compensation . Hence.
ORDER
The OP. No.1 is directed to registered the TATA Bolt car of the complainant and handover the Registration Certificate to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order . The Op No: 2 is directed to refund Rs.14,850/- to the complainant within the aforesaid period and shall not demand interest over the loan amount from the date of filing of this complainant till disposal of the case, i.e. from 30.06.2016 to 15.03.2017,. further the Op No: 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( fifty thousands) towards compensation & Rs.10,000/- ( ten thousand) towards cost to the complainant within the aforesaid period , failing which the entire amount of compensation & cost will carry an interest @ 8% P.A. till payment.
Accordingly the case is allowed against OP.No.1 to 3 and dismissed against OP-4.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
