1. Complaint in short is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a vehicle bearing registration No. KL-52C-173 Ritz Car, 2008 Model from the registered owner in possession Mr. Musthafa S/o Ali, Eranad Taluk, Melmuri amsom, Perumparamb Desom in the month of July 2015. The value of the vehicle was assessed as Rs. 4,84,135/- and vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 06/07/2015. The complainant paid Rs. 1,39,000/- on the same day to Mr. Musthafa and towards the balance amount of Rs. 3,45,135/-the complainant had agreed to pay the loan liability by making payment of Rs. 9,861/- as monthly instalment. The transaction of the vehicle between complainant Mr Musthafa was with the knowledge and consent of the opposite party. The complainant was regularly remitting the instalment amount. The complainant remitted Rs. 3,73,269/- to the opposite party till 30/05/2018. The said amount of Rs.3,73,269/- is more than the liability amount which worth Rs. 28,134/-.
2. The complainant approached the opposite party for the clearance certificate, RC book and key of the vehicle. But the opposite party demanded Rs. 76,000/- for the issuance of said documents. The opposite party said that there was default in making payment of instalment and the overdue amount is about Rs.76,000/-. The complainant submit that he remitted an excess amount of Rs. 28,134/-, but there was some delay in making payment in instalments, which was the result of financial crisis due to ban of currency and dull in his business. The complainant submits that he has no objection for taking the excess amount of Rs. 28,134/- towards default in making payment. But there is no justification for demand of Rs.76,000/- which is illegal. The opposite party claiming interest on interest for which the opposite party have no any sort of right. Hence the complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and seeking direction to issue RC, key and Clearance Certificate of vehicle to the complainant and also compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of financial loss.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and on receipt of notice the opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.
4. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no contract between complainant and opposite party as alleged in the complaint. The complainant have no right to contract with the so called Musthafa, the registered owner of vehicle No.KL-52C-173 while prevailing HP agreement between the opposite party and the said Mr. Musthafa. The complainant is entitled only to do so on transferring the Registration certificate of the vehicle in favour of the complainant. There is no legal sanctity for the transaction as stated in the complaint. The complaint is not even entitled for insurance claim. The complainant has not availed any sort of service from the opposite party and there is no privity of contract between complainant and opposite party. The opposite party has not given permission to the complainant for handing over the vehicle from Muhammed Musthafa. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable prima facie itself.
5. The opposite party submit that; they are not aware of the transaction between Mr. Muhammed Musthafa and the complainant regarding the vehicle No. KL-52-C- 173 for Rs. 4,84,135/- as stated in the complaint. The complainant has no right to enter in to an agreement with Muhammed Musthafa, which is illegal. The averment in the complaint that, the complainant paid Rs. 1,39,000/- to Mr. Musthafa after fixing the value of the vehicle as Rs. 4,84,135/- and the balance amount of Rs. 3,45,135/- was agreed to pay through monthly instalments of Rs. 9,861/-, the said amount was agreed to remit without any default are not known to the opposite party. The act of the complainant is against the terms of HP agreement and the allegation that the agreement was entered with the consent of opposite party is baseless. It is also denied that the complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 3,73,269/- till 30/05/2018 and which is more than the agreed amount. The opposite party further denied that the complainant approached the opposite party for RC and key, the opposite party said that there was default in making payment from the side of complainant, claimed overdue amount of Rs. 76,000/- etc. The opposite party submitted that, the original RC book and key and also other documents are with Mr. Musthafa. The registration certificate will be issued to registered owner after HP endorsement. the averment in the complaint that the complainant remitted the entire amount and excess amount of Rs. 28,134/-, there was delay in making payment in certain instalments which was due to failure in business and currency ban and the complainant remitted excess amount of Rs. 28,134/- which the complainant is ready to concede, the claimed Rs. 76,000/- in addition, the opposite party claimed interest on interest etc are baseless and against the terms of the agreement. The allegation of the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the side of opposite party and thereby he was compelled to remit Rs. 28,135/-are incorrect. The opposite party submitted that the complainant never remitted single pie towards the loan and the opposite party is entitled for Rs. 76,000/- towards the loan account. The opposite party is not in possession of RC and key. The complainant is not entitled and the opposite party is not authorised to issue the documents to the complainant. The opposite party has not collected any amount from the complainant and no excess amount has been collected from Musthafa also. The opposite party had issued proper receipts and messages towards the transactions. The opposite party is making to understand all the averments in the hire purchase agreement and issuing the payment chart clearly mentioning the amounts to be paid. But there is default in making payment of loan amount. So there is liability to pay additional hire charge in case of default payment. On completion of the instalment payment the opposite party is liable to issue no objection certificate and HP termination letter. The opposite party is not at all keeping the RC of the vehicle. The RC is usually issuing to the RC owner from the RT Office. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that the complainant is not competent to file this complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the cost of opposite party.
6. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3. The documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 and B2. The complainant examined the registered owner of the vehicle Mr. Muhammed Musthafa as PW1. Ext. A1 is copy of monthly instalment payment book. Ext. A2 series are pay –in-slip for payment of instalments (6 Nos.). Ext. A3 is power of attorney. Ext.B1 is authorisation letter, Ext. B2 is Hire purchase statement regarding instalments. Power of attorney holder, Muhammed Musthafa T.P S/o Ali , is examined as PW1.
7. Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
8.Point No. 1 to 3:-
The complainant entered into an agreement with Mr.Muhammed Musthafa, the RC owner of the vehicle No. KL-52-C-173, Ritz Car of 2010 model on 06/07/2015. As per the terms between the complainant and Musthafa, the complainant paid Rs. 1,39,000/- to Mr. Musthafa and the balance amount of Rs. 3,45,135/- was agreed to pay to opposite party through monthly instalment of Rs. 9,861/- without any default. The case of complainant is that though he remitted Rs. 28,134/- in excess of the liability amount, the opposite party is not delivering the RC, Key and clearance certificate, but claiming additional amount of Rs. 76,000/- as overdue amount which is illegal and amounts deficiency in service.
9. The opposite party denied the entire allegations of the complainant and contented that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party and there is no any sort of transaction between the complainant and opposite party and so the complainant is without any locus standy to file the complaint against the opposite party. The opposite party further contented that the registered owner of the vehicle is not entitled to enter in to a contract with another party while prevailing HP agreement. The opposite party specifically denied, the averment in the complaint that the transaction between Musthafa and complainant took place with the knowledge and consent of the opposite party.
10. The complainant produced Ext. A3, the power of attorney authorising the complainant to contest and do all the acts necessary in CC/13/2019 pending before Malappuram District Consumer Commission on behalf of the registered owner of vehicle KL-52-C-173 Ritz Car, Mr. Muhammed Musthafa .T.P. The said document is executed on 03/06/2022, on the day of examination of PW1 before the Consumer Commission.
11. It can be seen that at the time of filing this complaint, the vehicle was owned by Mr. Muhammed Musthafa and not by the complainant. The complaint was not filed as authorised person of the registered owner of the vehicle. It is also evident that there was a hire purchase agreement between the PW1 Mr. Muhammed Musthafa and the opposite party. There is no document to show that the transaction between the registered owner and the complainant was took place with the knowledge and consent of the opposite party. There is no document to show the entire amount of payment was made by the complainant to the opposite party. The documents Ext. A2 series reveals the payment was made on behalf of the registered owner.
12. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it appears that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party and so the contention of the opposite party is valid one. It is evident that the complainant filed Ext. A3 document in the light of the contention taken by the opposite party. Hence it will not be proper to interfere in the matter on the basis of the present complaint filed by the complainant. We are not considering, whether the complainant or the registered owner paid the entire amount or any default is caused or the opposite party collected excess amount from the complainant or the registered owner. The registered owner is at liberty to proceed against the opposite party if he is aggrieved by the act of the opposite party.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we dismiss this complaint.
Dated this 4thday of May, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Muhammed Musthafa.T.P S/o Ali.
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3
Ext.A1 : Copy of monthly instalment payment book
Ext.A2 : Series are pay –in-slip for payment of instalments (6 Nos.)
Ext A3 : Power of attorney.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 & B2
Ext.B1 : Authorisation letter
Ext.B2 : Hire purchase statement regarding instalments.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
