IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 187/09 DATED 09.10.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt.G.Shanthi, <br /> W/o A.P.Gunashekar, R/at No.344, Deshika Road, Devaraja Road, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.T.N.Nagananda, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Manager, M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services, No.1056, Kavitha Vilas, M.G.Road, Chamarajapuram, Mysore.<br /> 2. Manager, M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., No.200 F, 1st and 2nd Floor, 27th Cross, 7th Main Road, Shubhashree Plaza, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560011.<br /> (By Sri. G.V.Ramamurthy, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 27.08.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 30.07.2009<br /> Date of order : 09.10.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTHS 9 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking directions to transfer the vehicle in question, that has been purchased by him in the auction, before the RTO, Mysore with all the required formalities and also cost and damages.<br /> 2. In the complaint amongst other facts, it is alleged that the opposite parties had re-possessed vehicle from the loanee and had put it for auction. The complainant was successful bidder for Rs.5,61,000/-. The bid was accepted. Complainant paid entire bid amount. Later, it is learnt, the vehicle was not registered with RTO. It had only temporary registration. There was arrears of Rs.1,15,000/- towards life tax and also there was no insurance coverage. Hence, the complainant was not able to use the vehicle for day to day conveyance. At the time of auction, the opposite parties did not disclose material facts. It was the duty of the opposite parties, after auction to see that the vehicle is transferred in the name of the complainant. Even, the opposite parties have not furnished any documents enabling the complainant to get the vehicle transferred, so also, no objection certificate. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> 3. In the version, it is contend that vehicle was sold as is where is condition and the complainant accepting the condition has purchased the same. Other material allegations are denied.<br /> 4. In support of the respective contentions, both parties have filed affidavits and certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments of both the learned advocates and perused the material on record.<br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that she is entitled to any reliefs?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- First of all, it is relevant to note that, the Forum while admitting the complaint has ordered to issue notice to the opposite parties only in respect of the allegation of the complainant of non-supply of relevant documents to the complainant to get the vehicle registered. Hence, though in the complaint, several allegations are made and various releifs are sought, in view of the fact that, the complaint has been admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties in respect of specific claim, now we have to consider that aspect only.<br /> <br /> 8. During the course of arguments, both advocates argued various aspects. Firstly, considering the fact that the complaint has been admitted in respect of particular relief, all those facts need not be dealt with. Even otherwise, learned advocate for opposite parties referred to the decision reported in 1994 (I) CPR 557, which has been considered below commentary under section 2(1)(g) of the Act to the effect that<br /> “Vehicle sale on “as is where is” basis includes documents relating to vehicles defect in complaint by purchaser not maintainable. The State Commission was of the opinion that as the captioned car was purchased on the basis as is where is basis it includes all aspects including the position of the paper documents in relation to the car. Accordingly before submission of the tenders by the complainant/appellant she ought to have inspected not only the physical appearance of the vehicle but also the papers in relation to the said car as the tender was based “as is where is.”<br /> “After having purchased the car the complainant cannot raise any dispute as to the defects of the document in relation to the car or to the physical conditions of the car as her purchase, totally based on “as is where is” basis;”<br /> 9. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question in the auction that the opposite parties had put for sale. The bid has been accepted by the opposite parties and the complainant has paid the entire bid amount. Hence, when the complainant is the successful bidder and has purchased the vehicle from the opposite parties, it is for the opposite parties to hand over all the original documents in respect of the said vehicle and so also, issue NOC to the complainant to get the vehicle registered in her name. In the complaint, as well as in the affidavit, it is claimed by the complainant that the opposite parties have not complied with her request in this regard. Hence, we are of the opinion that in this regard there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 10. The complainant has alleged that though she purchased the vehicle paying an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- on 25.06.2008, because of want of registration she is enable to use the vehicle. Considering this amongst other facts and circumstances, towards mental agony, inconvenience, we feel it just to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. <br /> 11. Accordingly we answer the point partly in affirmative.<br /> 12. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties jointly and severally are hereby directed to hand over all the original documents in respect of the Mahendra Scarpio, which has been sold by them to the complainant in the auction and also issue NOC to the complainant to get the said vehicle registered and further, the opposite parties to co-operate with the complainant in getting the said vehicle registered with authorities concerned, in accordance with law. The documents and the NOC should be issued within 15 days from the date of this order.<br /> 3. The opposite parties jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards damages, within a month from the date of this order, failing which, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till realization.<br /> 4. Further, the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 9th October 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />