Date of Filing : 03.11.2010
Date of Order : 23.06.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 23rd June 2011
PRESENT
Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A., LL.B. (SPL) …. President
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A., LL.B. …. Member
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 2518 / 2010
Mr. M.Rajanna,
S/o. Mr. Mallaiah,
Aged 5 years,
R/at No.23, 5th Main,
REMCO Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore 560 040. ……. Complainant
V/s.
M/s Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd.,
No.28/1, Kensigton Road,
Opp. Gurudwara, Near Ulsoor Lake,
Bangalore 560 042.
Rep. by its Manager …… Opposite Party
ORDER
(By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale)
The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased the Chevrolet Tavera vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-D-840 from the opposite party through action on 03.08.2009 for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- and the opposite party has issued seven receipts to the complainant. The opposite party vide letter dated 03.08.2009 addressed its Manager, Garage Unit, requesting to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant and the complainant has received the vehicle from the opposite party, later revealed that the opposite party has not paid the road due tax and made the complainant to pay the road tax amounting to Rs.28,000/- and Insurance premium amount of Rs.11,401/-and Rs.10,337/- apart from the amount paid.
3. Even after making the above said payments on its presentation for transfer of the vehicle into complainant name, with one or the other reasons the opposite party dodged the matter for transfer of documents in the name of the complainant. Upon continuous follow-up came to know that there is a dispute between the opposite party and the earlier owner of the vehicle. Therefore, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence complainant prayed for refund the bid amount of Rs.3,30,000/-, road tax Rs.28,000/- and insurance premium amount of Rs.21,738/- [Rs.11,401/-+10,337/-] together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of receipt dated 03.08.2009.
4. The OP has filed defence version stating that financial assistance was given to Mr. Murthy, he committed default, and therefore vehicle has been repossessed under agreement dated 09.06.2009. He did not come forward to claim the vehicle or to pay the outstanding due. OP proceeded with sale of vehicle bearing No.KA-03-D-840. OP has invited various offers for sale of vehicle on “AS IS WHERE IS” basis with all existing liabilities thereon. Complainant offered highest price for purchasing the vehicle and the said offer has been accepted, it is true that complainant had paid entire sale amount and accordingly OP issued letter dated 03.08.2009 to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant. Complainant given letter of indemnity in favour of the OP. OP handed over Form No. 29, 30 and 35 to enable the complainant to get transfer the vehicle in his favour. Complainant accepted the sale of vehicle on “AS IS WHERE IS” basis and issued a letter of Indemnity dated 03.08.2009. The OP submitted that it is not the duty of the OP to transfer the vehicle, complainant has not made out any case to refund the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- which was collected by the OP. OP is not liable to pay road tax, insurance premium to the complainant. There is no bonafide reasons to claim Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. There is no deficiency in service rendered by the OP. For all these reasons stated above, the OP requested to dismiss the complaint.
5. The respective parties are produced documents and also affidavit evidence. I have gone through the pleadings, documents and the affidavit evidence of the parties. Arguments are heard.
6. Points for consideration are as under:
(i) Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
(ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.3,30,000/- and road tax, insurance premium amount paid from the OP?
(iii) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony?
(iii) What order and relief?
REASONS
7. It is an admitted case of the parties that the OP had repossessed the vehicle bearing No. KA-03-D-840 on 09.06.2009. The seized vehicle was put into auction. The complainant purchased in the public auction conducted by the OP. He being the highest bidder his bid was accepted by the OP. The highest bid amount of Rs.3,30,000/- was paid by the complainant for the said vehicle. It is the case of the complainant that even though the OP had accepted the bid and received the amount from the complainant has failed to transfer the vehicle in the name of the complainant and not made any sincere efforts in transferring the vehicle in RTO records till today. Therefore the auction of the OP in not transferring the vehicle amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant requested the OP to refund the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- and also the amount paid towards tax and insurance premium and the complainant got issued legal notice to the OP to transfer the vehicle in his name or alternatively to refund the amount, even though OP received the notice, neither replied to the legal notice nor taken any action as per the demand. Therefore, the complainant has been put into loss and mental agony. Almost all the facts are admitted in the case, the only defence taken by the OP is that the vehicle was sold in the public auction “AS IS WHERE IS” basis and once vehicle is sold the duty of the OPs ends and the OPs relaying upon letter of indemnity executed by the complainant. Relaying on the letter of Indemnity the OP has argued that the vehicle has been sold “AS IS WHERE IS” condition. Therefore the OP has not committed any deficiency in service.
8. The learned Advocate for the OP further argued that, it is the responsibility of the complainant to get the vehicle transferred in his name. Therefore, the counsel for the OP submitted that the complaint is not maintainable. This is a very strange and unfounded argument by the learned counsel for the OP. The OP cannot be absolved from the responsibility to transfer the vehicle in the name of the complainant, after receipt of the auction amount. Admittedly the vehicle has been put into public auction, the complainant having participated in the bid, he being highest bidder, his bid was accepted by the OP and the complainant has paid Rs.3,30,000/- to the OP and sale acceptance letter has been issued to the complainant by the OP. In regard to payment of Rs.3,30,000/- there is no dispute. “AS IS WHERE IS” condition mentioned in the letter of indemnity it does not mean that the OP cannot take steps to transfer the vehicle in the name of the auction purchaser. The said condition pertains to vehicle condition that means mechanical condition or parts of the vehicle etc. The above condition does not apply to the transfer of vehicle documents in the RTO records. The argument is that there is no responsibility of the OP to transfer the documents is unfounded and without any merit, such kind of argument cannot be accepted in the eye of law. The OP cannot wash off its hands after selling the vehicle and receiving the amount from the purchaser. It is the duty/responsibility and obligation on the part of the OP to get the documents transferred in the name of the complainant. If the OP is not in a position to get the vehicle transferred in the name of the auction purchaser, in that case the OP has to refund the amount with interest and compensation. It is very unfortunate that, though the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 03.08.2009 and paid the entire auction amount of Rs.3,30,000/- and his bid was accepted by the OP, but till today vehicle has not been transferred to the name of the complainant in the RTO records. The vehicle still stands in the RTO records in the name of the previous owner. Therefore, the OP has committed grave deficiency in service in not taking steps to transfer the vehicle in the name of the complainant in the RTO records. The complainant has been put to unnecessary mental tension and mental agony in purchasing the vehicle. The complainant cannot ply the vehicle on road without the transfer of documents in his name. Therefore, even though he has paid Rs.3,30,000/-, he could not get any return or income whatsoever. The complainant has also paid Rs.28,000/- towards road tax and he also paid Insurance amount two times of Rs.11.401/- and Rs.10,337/-. The complainant has produced the documents to show that he has paid Road tax and insurance premium but unfortunately the vehicle has not been transferred in his name by the RTO. Unless and until the vehicle is transferred in the name of the complainant, the vehicle will not be of any use to the complainant. Therefore the complainant is definitely entitled for the refund of amount paid to the OP. Further the complainant is also entitled for the refund of the amount paid towards the road tax and insurance premium. The OP being a financial institution, the manner in which he has behaved or acted is not proper. The complainant has been put into unnecessary loss, if this trend is continued, no bidder will come forward to purchase the vehicle in the public auction which will be conducted by the financial institutions for recovery of loan amount. The OP being a financial institution should take all these necessary steps of transfer of title of the sold vehicle in favour of the purchasers, without there being transfer of title, how can the purchaser run the vehicle. The OP has received the auction amount of Rs.3,30,000/- from the complainant and has failed to get the title documents transferred in the name of the complainant. This shows there is an utter negligence and deficiency in service. The complainant is definitely entitled for the amount paid by him to the OP along with the amount spends by him towards road taxes and insurance premium paid. Complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. The C.P. Act is a social and benevolent legislation, intended to protect better interest of the consumers. The complainant has been put into great loss even though he had paid huge amount for purchasing the vehicle in the public auction conducted by the OP, but he could not get any benefit out of his investment. Therefore, the complainant naturally put into mental agony, harassment and loss of his valuable time, energy. Therefore, the complainant is also entitled for compensation for mental agony suffered by him on account of the grave deficiency of service rendered by the OP. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is allowed. The OP is directed to refund Rs.3,30,000/- to the complainant. Apart from this amount the OP is also directed to pay Rs.49,738/-[Road tax and Insurance Premium amount] to the complainant.
The complainant is entitle at 12% PA interest on Rs.3,30,000/- from 03.08.2009 [date of payment] till the date of refund/release.
The OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
The complainant is also entitle Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the present litigation from the OP.
The OP is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order and on receipt of the above said ordered amount, the complainant has to surrender the vehicle to the OP.
Send a copy of the Order to both the parties at free of cost.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23rd June 2011.
Order accordingly
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings
MEMBER MEMBER
HAV*
