Date of Filing : 29.03.2021
Date of Disposal : 28.10.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR. B.A.,B.L., ......MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L., ......MEMBER-II
CC. No.50/2021
THIS FRIDAY, THE 28th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
Mrs.S.Nithya, W/o.Senthil Kumar,
No.3/3, Dharmaraja Koil Street,
Kovur, Kancheepuram District – 600 128. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Manager,
M/s.Max Automobiles,
Branch Office, GST Road, Mamandur,
Chengalpattu District – 603 111.
2.The Manager,
M/s.Max Automobiles, Registered Office,
No.41, JPM Illam,
1st Street, Thirumurugan Nagar,
Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060.
3.Mr.Jaganathan (Proprietor),
M/s.Max Automobiles,
No.41, JPM Illam,
1st Street, Thirumurugan Nagar,
Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060.
4.The Manager,
M/s.Max Automobiles,
Head Office, No.20/17, Kurukku Street,
Little Kancheepuram 631 501. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.S.Venkatathiri, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 18.10.2022 in the presence of M/s.S.Venkatathiri counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in not registering the vehicle purchased from them along with a prayer to take back the vehicle and to pay the entire balance EMI’s outstanding dues to M/s.Bajaj Finance Company Limited with interest and cheque bounce charges and all other charges levied by them and to get NOC from them and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with five months loan EMI paid by the complainant with 18% interest and to pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- towards compensation for lost of her husband’s average monthly income and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that she approached the 1st opposite party’s showroom at M/s. Max Automobiles at Mamandur and purchased a new passenger Auto rickshaw of Bajaj Maxima Diesel bearing the vehicle registration No.TN 14 T 3325, Engine No.BBYWJH 62255 and Chassis bearing No.MD2A95AY9JWH98456 under hire purchase agreement through M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited on 04.02.2019 for her husband and their family livelihood. At the time of purchase the complainant insisted specifically upon the 1st opposite party that she wanted the vehicle registration only through Sholinganallur RTO, because she was living with her family at No.1/72, MA.PO.SI. Street, Navalur for which the Manager of the 1st opposite party agreed. Thereafter the complainant had paid Rs.60,000/- as cash and further an amount of Rs.40,000/- thereby Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as advance. The 1st opposite party promised the complainant that the RC book of the vehicle would be delivered within a month but the same was not delivered till filing of the complaint. The showroom Manager of the 1st opposite party made false and misleading representation and hence the husband of the complainant was unable to drive peacefully the vehicle purchased without the RC book. Further the complainant was made to pay penalty for non possession of the RC Book. On enquiring the Manager of the 1st opposite party at last he informed that they could not register in the Sholinganallur RTO office as the said vehicle was diesel Auto and the Sholinganallur RTO Office could register the vehicles only with gas Autos. But he also convinced the complainant that he would try to register the vehicle. However, later he requested the complainant to return back the vehicle as he could not get the vehicle registration at Sholinganallur RTO Office and also undertook to get the No Objection Certificate from the Finance Company M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited and would hand it over to the complainant. On issuing a letter to the complainant stating about non registration of the vehicle and promising to pay the initial amount paid by the complainant the 1st opposite party undertook to take back the vehicle from the complainant. The complainant was made to pay subsequent five instalments from April 2019 to August 2019 without getting RC Book. Later the 1st opposite party avoided the complainant deliberately and after much pressure sent message through whatsapp to the complainant’s counsel, the registration and permit of the vehicle in which the photo seems to be a stranger and unknown person to the complainant. The name and address only are true. Hence the complainant till filing of the complaint did not receive original permit and RC book. The complainant’s husband could not drive the vehicle without registration which affected the livelihood of the complainant’s family. Thus the present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties for the following reliefs as mentioned below;
To direct the opposite parties to take back the vehicle and to pay entire balance EMI’s outstanding dues to M/s.Bajaj Finance Company Limited with interest and bounce charges and all other charged levied by them and get the NOC from them to the complainant;
To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with five months loan EMI paid by the complainant with 18% interest;
To pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- towards compensation for lost of her husband’s average monthly income;
To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses to the complainant.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to A12 were submitted. Despite service of notice the opposite parties did not appear before this Commission and hence they were called absent and set ex-parte on 24.06.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version.
Points for consideration:
Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not registering and not delivering the R.C Book for the vehicle Bajaj Maxima Diesel with registration No.TN 14 T 3325 purchased from them as alleged by the complainant?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of her contentions;
Aadhaar Card of the complainant was marked as Ex.A1;
Vehicle advance cash receipt dated 04.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;
Letter written by the 1st opposite party to the complainant with regard to take back the sold vehicle to the complainant dated 06.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;
Permit and R.C. Book copy sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant was marked as Ex.A4;
Legal notice received from Bajaj Finance Limited by the complainant’s counsel dated 04.01.2021 was marked as Ex.A5;
Legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the 1st opposite party and returned cover with acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.A6;
Legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the 2nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A7;
Legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the 3rd opposite party was marked as Ex.A8;
Legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the 4th opposite party was marked as Ex.A9;
Postal receipts for proof of deliver was marked as Ex.A10;
CD marked as Ex.A11& Ex.A12;
Heard the oral arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the written arguments and material evidences produced by the complainant. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that though the complainant requested for registration of the vehicle Bajaj Maxima Diesel purchased from them at the Sholinganallur RTO Office even at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the same was not carried out by the opposite parties. It was the case of the complainant is that till the filing of the complaint inspite of several efforts the opposite parties did not register the vehicle due to which the complainant’s husband who is an Auto rickshaw driver could not ply the vehicle for want of registration due to which the livelihood of the complainant got affected severely. Thus alleging deficiency in service the present complaint was filed and the counsel sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.
On appreciation of the material evidences we could find that vide Ex.A3 the letter written by the 1st opposite party dated 06.04.2019 it was stated that
“ePq;fs; 04.02.2019 md;W vq;fs; showroom-y; tz;bia vLj;jPu;fs;. Taluk rk;ke;jkhf RTO office-y; gpur;ridahf ,U;ejjhy; vq;fshy; rupahd rkaj;jpy; Registration nra;Jju Kbatpy;iy fhyjhkjk; Mfptpl;lJ. Proceeding rk;ke;jkhfTk; gpur;ridahf ,Ue;jJ. Mifahy; ,g;NghJ tUfpd;w 09.04.2019 nrt;tha;fpoikad;W Registration nra;J jUfpd;Nwhk;. ,y;iynadpy; ePq;fs; nrYj;jpa njhifia jpUg;gpj; jUtJld; cq;fs; kPJs;s Bajaj Finance flidAk; ehq;fs; jpUg;gp nrYj;jp thq;fp jUNthk; vd cWjpaspf;fpNwhk;.”
Further another letter was issued by the 1st opposite party stating that they could not register the vehicle and hence they would get back the vehicle and return the amount paid by complainant on 29.04.2019 and also they would obtain NOC letter from Bajaj Finance and gave it to the complainant
“ePq;fs; 04.02.2019 md;W vq;fs; epWtdj;jpy; tz;bia vLj;jPu;fs;. ,d;Wtiu ehq;fs; Registration nra;J jutpy;iy Vndd;why; Nrhopq;f ey;Y}u; RTO office-y; Diesel tz;b Registration nra;Jjug;glkhl;lhJ vd njupate;jJ. Mifay; ehq;fs; nfhLj;j tz;bia jpUk;g ngw;Wf;nfhz;L ePq;fs; nrYj;jpa njhifia jpUg;gp 29.04.2019 md;W ngw;Wf; nfhs;SkhW Nfl;Lf;nfhs;fpNwhk;. mj;Jld; Bajaj Finance-NOC letter jpUg;gp thq;fp jUfpd;Nwhk;.”
Further the Ex.A4, the alleged permit given by the opposite party we could find that it is a forged fake permit of the complainant to cheat the complainant and to avoid the request for registration of the vehicle. On seeing the material evidences we could come to a conclusion that the opposite parties had not only committed deficiency in service and also has committed clear unfair trade practice. It is clearly admitted by them that they promised for registration of the vehicle at the Sholinganallur RTO Office by their own letter but had issued a duplicate forged permit. The opposite parties had deviated from performing their duty in proper manner for which they should be held liable. In the facts and circumstances we hold that the opposite parties had committed clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not registering the vehicle sold by them even after receipt of the necessary amount. Thus this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite parties.
Point No.2:-
With regard to the reliefs to the granted as we have held above that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not registering the vehicle we thought it would be proper to direct the opposite parties to take back the vehicle and to refund the amount paid by the complainant and also to clear the remaining outstanding dues from the finance along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant which we thought would be proper in the facts and circumstances and we also award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 to 4 directing them
a) to take back the BAJAJ MAXIMA DIESEL vehicle from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,32,825/- (Rupees one lakh thirty two thousand eight hundred and twenty five only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b)to pay the entire outstanding dues for the remaining 43 months amounting to Rs.2,82,295/- (Rupees two lakh eighty two thousand two hundred and ninety five only) to M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited and to get No Objection Certificate and to hand over the same to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
d) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant;
e) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th day of October 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 .............. Aadhaar card of the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A2 04.02.2019 Vehilce advance cash receipt. Xerox
Ex.A3 06.04.2019 Letter to the complainant by the 1st oppostie party. Xerox
Ex.A4 .............. Permit and RC Book copy sent by 1st oppostie party. Xerox
Ex.A5 04.01.2021 Legal notice issued by Bajaj Finance limited. Xerox
Ex.A6 03.08.2020 Legal notice to the 1st oppostie party. Xerox
Ex.A7 03.08.2020 Legal notice to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A8 03.08.2020 Legal notice to the 3rd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A9 03.08.2020 Legal notice to the 4th opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A10 ............... Postal receipt for proof of delivery. Xerox
Ex.A11 ............... Video evidence of visiting Mr.Jaganathan Home as well as Registered office of 2nd opposite party. Original
Ex.A12 ............... Audio conversations with Mr.Nagaraj, and Mrs.Divya Managers of oppostie parties Original
List of documents filed by the opposite parties;
Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
