DATE OF FILING :05/05/17
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of January 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 87/17
Between
Complainant : Sandeep, S/o Kuttappan,
Edathottiyil House,
Maniyarankudy P.O.,
Lakshamkavala – 685 602,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Jijo Joseph)
And
Opposite Party : 1 . Eros Auto Mobiles Nirmala Building,
Near KSRTC Sub -Dipo,
Idukki Road, Kattappana,
Represented by Managing Director.
2 . Bajaj Auto Finanace, Nirmala Building,
Near KSRTC Sub -Dipo,
Idukki Road, Kattappana,
Represented by Managing Director.
(Both By Adv: Geo George)
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that,
Complainant purchased a second hand Autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL/37/A -7298 from the first opposite party and executed a sale agreement with the first opposite party on 18/08/16. The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- to the first opposite party and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.13,000/- within a short period. At that time the first opposite party informed that, the vehicle already having a finance of Rs.30,000/- with the second opposite party, and the second opposite party re-scheduled the existing finance as Rs.3220/- per months for a period of 12 months and the complainant agreed for that. As the second opposite party demanded, the
(cont...2)
-2-
complainant handed over all the necessary documents for transferring ownership of the vehicle in his favour along with Rs.4000/- as its charges to the second opposite party. The first opposite party given a photocopy of the RC book to the complainant and the original RC book and all other paper of the vehicle were kept with them. Complainant further contended that at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the second opposite party made the complainant believe that, the original RC book of the vehicle will be return to him immediately after changing the ownership. When the complainant approached the opposite parties for getting back the original RC book, insurance certificate and tax token, they were not turned up and in the meantime the tax of the vehicle became due in the month of September 2016. The complainant further averred that even though the complainant remitted the instalments regularly, the opposite parties failed to return the original documents of the vehicle. Due to the unavailability of the documents and due to non payment of the vehicle tax the complainant is unable to ply his vehicle, due to this he failed to remit further instalments and he suffered a heavy financial loss and his family is in peril, since they are depending on this vehicle for their livelihood.
Now the second opposite party in forcing the complainant to remitting the entire loan amount in lump sum or else they will take possession of the vehicle. Complainant further stated that he remitted an amount of Rs.37000/- in total in this loan and he is not liable to pay the penal charges, as demanded by the second opposite party and the second opposite party is keeping the vehicle documents with them, is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in their service.
Against this complainant filed the complaint seeking relief such as to restrain the second opposite party from taking possession of the vehicle discussed above and also direct them to hand over the vehicle records and other consequential relief.
Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed reply version. In their version opposite parties contended that at the time of purchase of the above alleged vehicle complainant agreed to pay its balance amount of Rs.30,000/- as 12 instalments @ Rs.3220/- per month. But the complainant had paid only 2 instalments. After repeated demands he failed to remit further
(cont...3)
-3-
instalments. Opposite parties further contended that the complainant has not handed over the personal details to the second opposite party, in order to transfer the vehicle registration in his favour and he has not paid its expenses also, due to the default in remitting the balance finance amount. More over at the time of purchase, the opposite parties duly informed the complainant that the vehicle is already registered in the name of another party and vehicle finance is already noted there in, and the ownership of the vehicle cannot be transferred untill clearing the finance. Complainant has not given the attested copies of ID and Adhar to renew the permit and tax. Actual facts being so, other allegation are cooked up stories only for the purpose of this complaint. The opposite parties are entitled to recovered the loan dues together with interest. Hence no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is happened in this matter.
Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Ext.P1 is the copy of the RC book, Ext.P2 (s) are receipts, Ext.P3 is the sale agreement, Ext.P4 is the letter.
From the defence side the Manager in charge of the second opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext.R1 to Ext.R8 were marked. Ext.R1 is the letter of authorisation, Ext.R2 is the copy of P3, Ext.R3, R4 and R5 are the copy of demand notice dated 03/05/17 and its AD card and postal receipts respectively, Ext.R6 is the copy of P4 notice, Ext.R7 is the copy of postal receipts, Ext.R8 is the receipts showing payment the loan account.
Heard both sides,
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The Points:- After going through the allegation in the complaint, written version evidences and documents brought on the record, the Forum is of a considered view that, it is an admitted fact that as per Ext.P3 agreement for sale the complainant is purchased the alleged vehicle for an amount of Rs.60,000/- and he was agreed to pay a balance amount of Rs.30,000/-
(cont..4)
-4-
in 12 monthly instalments @ Rs.3220/- per month. As per the records Ext.P2 agreement was executed on 01/08/16. As per the agreement complainant was agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 13000/- within 10 days from 01/08/16. as per Ext.P2 receipt complainant paid the amount on 11/08/16 and 12/08/16. As per Ext.R8, towards the loan amount complainant paid an amount of Rs.7600/- on 30/11/16, and Rs.1500/- on 17/10/16. through this receipts it is seen that complainant was remitted an amount of Rs.9100/-, in total to this loan account and no evidence is produced by the complainant to convince that whether he remitted much more amount that he pleaded.
Then regarding the insurance of the vehicle records, it is seen that the vehicle records were in the custody of the second opposite party, and they produced it before the Forum on direction . By perusing the document it is seen that the vehicle tax was due in the month of November 2016 and it is very clear that the complainant was unable to remit the vehicle tax thereafter and contention of the complainant is believable that he is forbidden from paying the vehicle tax due to the irresponsible attitude of the second opposite party. It is also admittable that the non issuance of vehicle document caused much financial liabilities to the complainant. It is the primary duty of the vehicle finance company to hand over the vehicle records to the present owner by closing the present financial noting, since the vehicle is re financed in the favour of the complaint.
Here as per Ext.P3 sale agreement, the vehicle is re financed in favour of the complaint. Hence it is the primary duty of the second opposite party to close the present loan and create a fresh noting and transferred the vehicle in favour of the present owner. From the records and deposition, it is very clear that the act of the opposite parties warranted unfair trade practice and it caused much financial loss to the complainant since his family is solely depending upon the income from the vehicle.
Hence under the above said circumstances the complaint partly allowed. The complainant is directed to remit the defaulted instalments with 12% interest and also directed him to collect the vehicle records from this office. Opposite parties directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation and
(cont...5)
-5-
Rs.3000/- as litigation cost to the complainant and opposite parties further directed to take necessary steps to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the complaint, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2018.
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Sandeep Kuttappan
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Sony
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The copy of the RC book
Ext.P2 (s) - Receipts
Ext.P3 - The sale agreement
Ext.P4 - The letter.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - The letter of authorisation
Ext.R2 - The copy of P3
Ext.R3, R4 and R5 - The copy of demand notice dated 03/05/17 and its AD card
and postal receipts respectively
Ext.R6 - The copy of P4 notice
Ext.R7 - The copy of postal receipts
Ext.R8 - The receipts showing payment the loan account.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
