Date of Filing : 03.05.2023

                                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 29.11.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                              .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR., B.Sc., B.L.,                                                                 …….MEMBER-I

CC. No.64/2023

THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

S.Jothi, S/o.Subramani,

No.15, Athireyamangalam,

Ponneri Taluk,

Thiruvallur District  601 204.                                                                    ……Complainant

-Vs-

1.M/s.Sanju Finance,

   (Proprietors/Partners),

   Having office at No.54,

   Mulla Shaib Street,

   1^st Floor, Back Side,

   Sowarpet, Chennai 600 001.

2.Mr.Vijay Lal Wani,

3.Akshay Lal Wani

   Owner of M/s.Mahaveer Motors,

   No.121, GNT Road,

   Karanodai, Chennai 600 067.                                                        ……Opposite parties.

Counsel for the Complainant                                                : M/s.E.Anandan, Advocate.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties                                          : Set Exparte

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 24.11.2023 in the presence of M/s.E.Anandan, counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and for non filing of written version inspite of sufficient notice and upon perusing the documents and evidences of complainant’s side this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

1. 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 transferring the name of the vehicle purchased by the complainant along with a prayer to register the bike in the name of complainant and to hand over the motor vehicle and also the original documents of the motor vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.  

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Dissatisfied with the acts of opposite parties in not transferring the name for the vehicle purchased by the complainant, the present complaint was filed.

3. The complainant intended to purchase a second hand vehicle and with one Mr.A.S.Kumar purchased a bike belonging to one Mr.P.Vignesh from 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties under delivery note 552, dated 19.11.2021.  The price of the vehicle was fixed at Rs.1,12,000/- and documentation charges Rs.10,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs.30,000/- as advance and the balance amount of Rs.82,000/- agreed to be paid in monthly instalments at Rs.5,250/- per month.  Though assured the Mahaveer Motors i.e. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties did not change the name of complainant in the RC Book.  While so on 29.11.2022 the vehicle was illegally seized by the opposite parties.  A legal notice was also sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant for which, suitable reply was given.  Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to register the bike in the name of complainant and to hand over the motor vehicle and also original documents of the motor vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.  

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A11 were submitted. Though notice was served to the 1^st opposite party he did not appear before this Commission to file any written version and hence he was called absent and set exparte on 19.10.2023 for non appearance and non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.

5. Though one Mr.D.Raghunathan Advocate filed Vakalath for 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties he did not appear before this Commission to file written version and hence he was called absent and set exparte on 08.09.2023 for non appearance and non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.

Points for consideration:-  

1. Whether the complainant’s allegations against the opposite parties in not transferring the vehicle in the complainant’s name after purchasing the same and seizing the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?

2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of her contentions;

1. Delivery Note issued by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties dated 19.11.2021 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Registration Certificate was marked as Ex A2;
3. Insurance policy was marked as Ex A3;
4. Google Pay instalment was marked as Ex.A4;
5. CSR copy dated 30.11.2022 was marked as ExA5;
6. Accident Register issued by Government Hospital, Ponneri, Thiruvallur dated 30.11.2022  was marked as ExA6;
7. Injury report was marked as Ex.A7;
8. FIR copy dated 23.12.2022 was marked as Ex.A8;
9. Legal notice issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 06.12.2022 was marked as Ex.A9;
10. Reply cum legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party dated 23.01.2023 was marked as Ex.A10;
11. Postal tracking report was marked as Ex.A11;

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the written arguments filed by them.

7. It is the case of the complainant that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party inspite of receiving the monthly instalments failed to make the name transfer for the vehicle purchased by the complainant.

8. On perusal of the complaint allegations and materials produced by the complainant it is seen that the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle on 19.11.2021 vide Ex.A1.  Ex.A2 shows that the vehicle stood in the name of earlier owner one Mr.P.Vignesh.  The insurance policy was also in the name of the erstwhile owner P.Vignesh.  Instalments were paid through Google pay and the same was filed as Ex.A4.  Further the Police Complaint and FIR copy was marked as Ex.A5 and Ex.A8.  On perusal of Ex.A9 dated 06.12.2022 it is seen that a legal notice was issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant and Mr.A.S.Kumar through whom the complainant had purchased the vehicle.  In the said legal notice it has been clearly stated as follows,

 It is very well clear in the said H.P. Agreement that you must pay all monthly hire instalments on its correct due dates without any default to my clients while keeping the vehicle always in your custody having no right to transfer, sell, alienate or pledge it or its any part to any other person and you should keep the vehicle always in perfect condition and it you fail to comply with any of the provisions of the said Agreement or if you fail to remit any of the monthly instalments on its correct due dates, my clients may utilize their power of specific performance and may repossess the vehicle for recovery of entire due amount at any time without any pre-notices to you.  The records and Statement of Account placed before me clearly shows you have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement my clients’ repossessed vehicle Regn. TN-12-AH-9949 which was found in extremely poor conditions, missing so many major parts from the vehicle.  Note that the worth of the vehicle in the present condition is very less than the due amount of my clients.  My clients’ due amount cannot be recovered and cannot be adjusted by sale of the vehicle in the poor conditions.

9. Thus it is made clear that the complainant was not prompt in paying the monthly instalments.  It is an established principle that until the entire financed amount is paid the financier would be consider as the owner of the vehicle.  The proof of payment of EMI Ex.A4 shows that the complainant did not pay the instalments appropriately on the fixed date.  The Consumer Complaint was filed only after the issuance of legal notice by the 1^st opposite party.  In such facts and circumstances we do not find any reason to hold that the opposite parties had committed any deficiency in service.  The prayer in such scenario to direct the opposite parties to return back the vehicle to the complainant is highly untenable and could not be granted as the complainant did not approach this Commission with clean hands.  Thus we hold that the complainant failed to show any bona fide reason to hold that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in not transferring the name and seizing the vehicle.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and as against the complainant.

Point No.2:-

10. As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove that the opposite parties had committed unfair trade practice or deficiency in service, he is not entitled to any relief from the opposite parties.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

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 29^th day of November 2023.

   Sd/-                                                                                                                        Sd/-

 MEMBER-I                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

  Sd/-                                                                                                                         Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                         PRESIDENT