By G. Yadunadhan, President:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that his brother-in-law, K.P. Gopalan had purchased a TATA mini bus with chasis No.38622JYS719360, Engine No.497TC85JYZ885798. The said Gopalan entered higher purchase loan and executed an agreement dated 24.9.2001 and obtained a loan amount of Rs.4,70,000/- from the opposite party. The finance charge for the loan was fixed at Rs.3,17,650/- and insurance premium of Rs.52,800/- for 5 years was collected. Thus a total amount of Rs.8,40,450/- was agreed to be re-paid in 60 instalments commencing from 25.10.2001 to 25.9.2006 and an amount of Rs.15,000/- was collected as service charge. Sri. K.P. Gopalan had been repaid the loan in 22 instalments. Subsequently, K.P. Gopalan entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the above said agreement was executed with the consent and knowledge of the opposite party. On the date of sale agreement, the amount due to the 1st opposite party was Rs.5,39,750/- after deducting the instalment amount remitted by Gopalan. The balance amount has to be remitted by the complainant and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant with the consent of the opposite party. Thereafter complainant expressed his willingness to remit the whole amount to the opposite party in lumpsum and he was directed to remit Rs.3,80,000/-, even though the complainant informed the opposite party that the amount for closing the account would be 3,15,000/-, opposite party instructed to remit Rs.3,80,000/-. Therefore the complainant availed a loan from State Bank of India, REC branch, Chathamangalam and remitted Rs.3,80,000/- as per D.D.bearing No.369561 dated 25.8.2001 in the name of Gopalan. All the documents necessary for transfer of vehicles were signed by Gopalan in the presence of opposite party. The opposite party issued NOC to delete the endorsement in the RC. According to the complainant the amount due to the opposite party for two years while closing the account was only Rs.3,15,000/-, but opposite party collected Rs.3,80,000/-. Thereby opposite party collected an excess amount of Rs.65,000/-from the complainant, which is highly illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore complainant caused to issue notice to opposite party to return excess amount collected by them. But opposite party did not return the amount so far. Opposite party has collected future insurance premium for three years amounting to Rs.31,080/- and collected interest for them. Opposite party collected Rs.15,000/- towards service charge. Opposite party is liable to return the excess amount collected by them. This is an unfair trade practice according to complainant. Therefore complainant prays to return excess amount of Rs.65,000/- with 12% interest per annum and also to return an excess amount of Rs.31,080/- collected by Opposite party by way of future premium of insurance for three years with 12% interest and to return Rs.15,000/- collected as service charge. <br /> <br /> Opposite party entered in appearance and filed written version. Opposite party contends that complaint is not maintainable. According to them complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party denies the execution of the agreement between Gopalan and Complainant. Complainant is a stranger as far as opposite party is concerned and there was no occasion for the opposite party to deal with the complainant. Opposite party was not aware of the agreement between the complainant and Sri.Gopalan. The vehicle referred above was the absolute property of the opposite party (Shriram Investment Ltd.). Shriram Investment Ltd. was the absolute owner of the vehicle. Therefore, Gopalan, who was allowed to use the vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, has no authority to transfer, alienate or sell the vehicle without the consent or permission of the opposite party. Complainant has no authority to enter into a sale agreement and if any agreement is entered disregarding law, that too without the permission of Sri Ram Investment Ltd., it becomes illegal and unsustainable. The complainant herein has no role whatsoever in the matter at any moment of time. The opposite party strongly believes that all the allegations in the complaint are intended to extract money from the opposite party in a most fraudulent and unfaithful manner. The allegation that the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to remit the amount of Rs.3,80,000/-, but the complainant informed them that only Rs.3,15,000/- is sufficient for closing the account and finally he availed a loan from State Bank of India and remitted the amount under protest in the name Gopalan etc. are absolutely false. The complainant has no privity of contract or role to challenge it. There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as stated in the complaint. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as stated in the complaint. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> Points for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? If so, what is the relief and cost?<br /> <br /> Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the opposite party no documents were produced.<br /> <br /> Opposite party admits that Sri. K.P. Gopalan obtained a loan and there was relation between the said Gopalan and Opposite party. Whereas opposite party denies the entire averments regarding the petitioner’s connection with the opposite party. On a perusal of the documents, no document or evidence stands in the name of Complainant and the complainant fails to produce any evidence to show the connection between the complainant and the opposite party. Complainant submits that he is a beneficiary of service hired or availed by his brother-in-law, K.P. Gopalan from the opposite party for consideration and that too with the approval of his brother-in-law who availed service of the opposite party. The best person to prove the above fact or agreement is Sri. K.P. Gopalan, who failed to come before this Forum. Admittedly, even after execution of the agreement also all the payments and dealings were stands in the name of the above said Sri. K.P. Gopalan. Ext. A5 sands in the name of K.P.Gopalan and there is nothing wrong in accepting such dealing by the opposite party and though this Ext. A5, it is very difficult to find the nexus between the complainant and opposite party and they endorsed all the action by the complainant. Further, Counsel for the complainant argues that the clearance certificate issued by the opposite party was collected by the complainant and duplicate key was also collected by the complainant. This alone is not sufficient to reach the conclusion by this Forum that contractual obligations are renovated and legal obligations are casted upon petitioners and opposite party. Whereas the opposite party submits that Ext. A1 is not binding upon them and there was no occasion to deal with the complainant. In this context the argument put forwarded by the opposite party that Sri. <br /> Gopalan ought to have filed the complaint, before other courts. From the above observation, this Forum fails to find that the complainant and opposite party has got legal relationship and complainant is a consumer and he can complain about the deficiency of service. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. <br /> <br /> Therefore complaint is dismissed without cost.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Court this the 8th day of August 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Documents exhibited for the Complainant<br /> A1 Agreement executed by Sri. K.P. Goapalan and the complainant.<br /> A2 Copy of letter dated 27.10.2003 by the Opposite party to the Additional <br /> Registering Agency, Koduvally.<br /> A3 Photocopy of notice of termination of an agreement of Hire Purchase<br /> Dated 27.8.2003.<br /> A4 Higher Purchase/Lease Agreement No.1079608 dated 25.1.2001.<br /> A5 HP/Lease acknowledgement slip No.6101719 dated 25.8.03.<br /> A6 Photocopy of letter from SBI, REC dated 17.6.04 to the Registering Authority<br /> Koduvally.<br /> A7 HP/Lease Receipt – 21 Nos.<br /> Documents exhibited for the Opposite parties:<br /> Nil<br /> Witness examined for the Complainant:<br /> PW1 T.P. Balaram, S/o. Chathan, Sadguru Nivas, REC, Calicut-Complainant.<br /> Witness examined for the Opposite parties:<br /> None.<br /> -/True copy/-<br /> Sd/-President<br /> (Forwarded/By Order)<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.<br />