BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

              Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member

Thursday, the 14^th day of February, 2013

CC.No. 52 of 2011

Between:                 

Ch. Mogulaiah S/o Ramaiah,

Age 54 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Aksanpally village,

Andole Mandal, Medak District.

     …. Complainant

And

1.   M/s. Sai Krishna Agencies,

Mahindra Tractors & Implements,

Sales & Services, Medak Town Rep. by its

Proprietor.

2.   The Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Opp. New Collectorate

Complex, Sangareddy town, Medak District.

3.   The Manager, ICICI Bank, Airport Road, Near

Microsoft Buisling, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

                                                                                       … Opposite parties.

                This case came up for final hearing before us on 30.01.2013 in the presence of Sri G. Subash Chander, Advocate for the complainant, Sri A. Bal Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No. 1 and Sri Ananth Rao Kulkarni, Advocate for the opposite parties No 2 & 3, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per se G. Sreenivas Rao, Member)

                   The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to hand over the RC book of tractor & trailor and to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation/ damages for the monetary loss incurred to the complainant and also to direct the opposite parties to pay costs and any other award as deemed fit.

Brief facts of the case:

                   The complainant had purchased a Mahindra Tractor bearing No. AP 23 P 5560 for Rs. 5,35,000/- in the month of October 2008 from the opposite party No. 1 under exchange scheme of the old tractor. The old tractor had registration No. 1866 and its trailor with 1867. The opposite party No. 1 fixed Rs. 1,35,000/- for the old tractor and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,95,000/- was taken as loan in the name of complainant from opposite party No. 3 and the opposite party No. 1 / dealer delivered the new tractor without RC book for it. On several occasions he insisted for the RC book but the opposite party No. 1 informed that he received Rs. 3,80,000/- against loan amount of Rs. 3,95,000/-, on inquiry the complainant came to know that the opposite party No. 3 paid Rs. 3,95,000/- to opposite party No. 1, so the complainant is unable to run the vehicle/tractor without the RC book as such it is kept idle. Thereby, vexed with the acts of the opposite party No.1 & 3, a legal notice got issued to them but they have not responded. Then the opposite party No. 2 (recovery branch) started harassing the complainant for the payment of loan installments otherwise threatening to seize the vehicle from the complainant. The complainant also made a complaint to the Jogipet police station, but they too failed to take any action against the opposite parties. By alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, he filed the case.

2.            The opposite party No. 1 denied the allegations of the complainant but admitted that the complainant did purchase a new tractor in exchange of his old tractor in the month of October 2008 and the complainant got it registered on 12.01.2009 and since then he did not make any complaint about not handing over of the RC book. The opposite party No. 1 also submits that the complainant intentionally filed this complaint to evade tax payment due on the old tractor, when demanded to pay the same. The complainant dragging the issue on one pretext or the other. The opposite party No. 1 also submitted that he never demanded Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant. Finally the opposite party No. 1 submits that he is ready to return the RC book of trailor provided the complainant detaches it from the tractor and pay the taxes due on the old tractor. As such he did not cause any deficiency in service.

b).           The opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 filed a common counter in which they say that they are wrongly made parties to the alleged dispute between the complainant and opposite party No. 1. However they admit that the opposite party No. 3 had sanctioned loan of Rs. 3,95,000/- for the new tractor bearing No. AP 23 P5560 and it was hypothecated to the bank vide “Hypothecation deed dated. 18.11.2008. And the opposite party NO. 3 disbursed the loan amount of Rs. 3,84,704/- vide loan account No. LFSNG00014569097 (Rs. 3,95,000/- minus process fee of Rs. 8,876/- and Rs. 2,050/- as stamp duty charges) which was to be repaid in 10 installments @ Rs. 64,285/- on half yearly basis. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 also revealed that the complainant failed to pay the installments and as on 09.09.2011, a sum of Rs. 3,50,582/- was due to them.

3.              The complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents marked as exhibits A1 & A2 whereas the opposite parties filed evidence affidavit & documents were marked as exhibits B1 to B5.

4.                 Now the point for consideration is, whether the opposite parties caused any deficiency in service? If so, to what relief?

Point:

5.      i). The complainant purchased a new tractor in the month of October 2008 in exchange of his old tractor with trailor which is financed by opposite party No. 3 bank. Whereas the contention of the complainant is that opposite party No. 1 had not returned his RC book for the new tractor, as such he is unable to ply the vehicle thereby incurred loss, hence seeking compensation before this Forum. To substantiate his stand he filed only legal notice (Ex.A1) dt. 02.06.2010, with receipts & acknowledgement (Ex.A2).

          ii). The opposite party No. 1, has not filed any document whereas the opposite party No. 2 & 3 combinedly filed ICICI bank loan application duly filled by the complainant as per Ex. B1. The loan account statement of the complainant (Ex.B2) proves that Rs. 3,95,000/- loan amount was disbursed through cheque No. 344638, dt. 18.11.2008. The Ex.B3 shows that for the loan amount of Rs. 3,95,000/- a processing fee of Rs. 8,876/- and stamp duty of Rs. 2,050/- were deducted and Rs. 3,84,074/- was disbursed to opposite party No. 1 / Sai Krishna Agencies / Dealer. The Ex.B4 is the (POA) authorization of the bank and Ex. B5 contains the details of pre-payment of loan as on 10.09.2011.

          iii). The Senior Assistant from the office of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Sangareddy deposed as PW.2 and clarified procedure of registration of the vehicle and also gave information from the office record that the tractor was registered as AP 23 P 5560 on 12.01.2009 and the complainant took the original RC book of the vehicle. He also informed that the complainant did not give any complaint to his office for non receipt of his RC book. He also said that if the owner of the vehicle demanded a duplicate RC book, which will be issued after consulting the financier (if any) and also verify the police complaint. He further revealed from the office record that the complainant did not pay tax of his tractor from 01.04.2009 till date and as such the registration number of the tractor was inactivated on 25.01.2012 (for non payment of the tax for more than five quarters) as per the order of the office of DTC, SRD. However the office does not maintain any record to show that who took the RC book after registration of the vehicle.

          iv).   On serious perusal of the above, it seems that the complainant availed the loan facility and in the exchange scheme he purchased a new tractor in October 2008 from opposite party No. 1. The loan facility was offered by financier /opposite party No. 3. Whereas he says that the RC book of the new tractor is with the dealer/opposite party No. 1 who demanded Rs. 15,000/- as registration charges & insurance premium for release of the RC book of old trailor and RC book of new tractor. When the vehicle / tractor is under the Hire purchase agreement, the usual practice being followed by the financier is, he would get the vehicle registered with the help of the dealer who happens to be in direct contact with the customer and obviously the dealer delivers the RC book to the customer to complete the sale / exchange transaction. So in the instant case basing on the available evidence, it appears that the opposite party No. 1 / dealer must have with held the RC book of the new tractor purchased by the complainant, in exchange of his old tractor with trailor. Further in the counter the opposite party No. 1 has undertaken to return the RC book of old trailor of the complainant on the condition of his detaching it from the old tractor and subject to payment of taxes due on the old tractor. But the opposite party No. 1 did not file any documentary evidence to support the same. Even he did not reply to the legal notice dt.02.06.2010 of the complainant. In such circumstances the opposite party No. 1 is liable to release the RC books & pay the compensation. The complainant is therefore able to prove deficiency in service partly and unfair trade practice i.e., against opposite party No. 1 only and there is no reason to go against opposite party No. 3 who is just a financier and opposite party No. 2 being the local recovery agent on behalf of opposite party No. 3. The complainant is at liberty to obtain a duplicate RC book of new tractor from the DTC, SRD and the expenses for the same can be collected from the dealer / opposite party No. 1, in the event of failure of opposite party No. 1 in releasing the original RC books.

         v).     Moreover the Hire purchase agreement had been entered between the complainant & opposite party No. 3 and in such case the ownership is not transferred to purchaser as per form 24 B (Registration of Motor Vehicle) and the same is endorsed on the RC of the vehicle. Hence the parties are bound by the Hire purchase agreement. And the Forum has no jurisdiction to rewrite the terms of the agreement. In the instant case, the complainant deemed to have not used the vehicle for want of RC book and sustained loss and he demands compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs which is very high. Therefore, the opposite party No. 3 may reschedule the payment of installment in the interest & welfare of the complainant who is a farmer. The complainant should also remember that failure to pay the installment, the opposite party No. 3 has a right to seize the tractor under Hire purchase agreement.

6.               In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No. 1/ dealer is directed to release the RC books of old trailor & New tractor. He is further directed to pay a reasonable compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for the mental agony & hardship caused to the complainant. The opposite party No 2 and 3 are directed to reschedule the payment of installments of loan amount from April 2013 onwards. No costs. Time for compliance is one month.                       

      Dictated to Stenographer, after correction the order was pronounced by us in the open court this the 14^th day of February, 2013.

          Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                Sd/-              

           LADY MEMBER                     PRESIDENT            MALE MEMBER            

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the complainant:                                             For the opposite parties;-

PW. 2 – R. Raghupathi Rao,                                                    -Nil-           

Sr. Asst. O/o The Deputy Transport

                   Commissioner, SRD.              

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

              Sd/-                                      Sd/-                             Sd/-

       LADY MEMBER                   PRESIDENT             MALE MEMBER

Copy to

1)   The Complainant

2)   The Opp.Parties 

3)   Spare copy