DATE OF FILING : 14.10.2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of   May,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.295/2015

Between

Complainant       :   Joby Jose, S/o. A.J. Joseph,

Anchakunnathu House,    

Cumbummettu P.O.,

Idukki.

(By Adv:  Vikraman Nair N.G.)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

       Branch Office, 2nd Floor,

       Kanakkalil Building, 

       Kattappana, Idukki.

       (By Adv:  Gem Korason) 

  2.  Abdul Salam,

      Erupathilchira House,

      Puthenchantha, Mundakkayam,

      Idukki.

      (By Adv:  Sijimon K. Augustine)

3.  The State of Kerala,

      Represented by 

      Regional Transport Officer,

      Vandipperiyar, Idukki. 

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that,

          Complainant had availed a loan from 1st opposite party financing company for purchasing his vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-5P-1611.  But due to some financial problems, he was failed to remit the EMI regularly.   So, the 1st opposite party took possession of the vehicle and the complainant entrusted the RC Book to the 1st opposite party.  The complainant further averred that 1st opposite party sold the vehicle to 2nd opposite party,  without intimating it to the complainant.  At the time of 

(cont....2)

- 2 -

taking possession, 1st opposite party assured that they will change the ownership of the vehicle and the loan will be closed from the sale amount of the vehicle.  Matter being so, complainant received a notice from 3rd opposite party, demanding him to pay tax arrears of the vehicle which was due on 1.10.2011.  Thereafter the branch manager of 1st opposite party had undertaken to rectify the mistake and he assured that the complainant will be absolved of all liabilities.  Matter being so, on 18.3.2015, complainant received a notice from the opposite party demanding to pay an amount of Rs.6,70,351/- as loan dues.

          Complainant further contended that eventhough he entrusted the vehicle to 1st opposite party for full and final settlement of loan amount, the opposite party had failed to change the ownership of the vehicle and had not closed the loan account and now they are demanding a very huge amount as loan dues.  The above said act from the part of 1st opposite party is a clear deficiency in their service and unfair trade practice and the 3rd opposite party is made a part to the proceedings being a necessary party.

          Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed reply version.  In their version, 1st opposite party contended that, the complainant is a gross defaulter and the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle and at the time of surrender, the complainant consented for the sale of the vehicle and he further agreed to pay the balance amount after adjusting the sale value of the vehicle in the loan account.  Contrary averments are false and hence denied.  The 1st opposite party by issuing notice to the complainant, informed the fact of the sale of the vehicle and the complainant was well aware of the sale of the vehicle.  The fact of the sale of the vehicle to 2nd opposite party is also intimated to 3rd opposite party.  The 1st opposite party had complied all the legal formalities and the alleged incident happened only out of the negligence from the part of the complainant and 2nd opposite party.  The complainant is liable to pay the 

      (cont....3)

- 3 -

loan dues and 1st opposite party had taken necessary steps to recover the amount from the complainant.  The 1st opposite party is not under the liability to change the ownership of the vehicle.  Mere surrendering of vehicle after squeezing the same and using the vehicle for a long period of time will not keep away the complainant from his liability with the 1st opposite party.  The opposite party further contended that, the complainant in order to escape from the liability with the 1st opposite party, he had approached the Forum by suppressing the real facts.  Hence complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In their written version, 2nd opposite party contended that the complainant has no consumer relationship with him and unnecessarily added him as a party.  2nd opposite party further contended that, he is unaware of the fact that the 1st opposite party had sold the vehicle bearing No.KL-5P-1611, to him.  It is true that the 2nd opposite party participated the auction conducted by the 1st opposite party and the vehicle was auctioned to him for an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- and as per the terms and conditions of the auction, the 1st opposite party made him believe that they would deliver the vehicle within one week after completing the paper works and formalities.  Facts being so, after one week the manager of 1st opposite party intimated that auction was cancelled and on 17.1.2012, the 1st opposite party returned Rs.13,500/- out of Rs.15,000/- collected by them from this opposite party as earnest money.  The said vehicle was neither delivered to the 2nd opposite party nor the ownership changed in favour of 2nd opposite party.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from 2nd opposite party.

          Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked.  Ext.P1 is the demand notice issued by the 3rd opposite party.  Ext.P2 is the receipt issued by the 1st opposite party.  

     (cont....4)

- 4 -

Ext.P3 is the legal notice issued by the 1st opposite party.  From the opposite side, Exts.R1 to R5 produced and marked.  Ext.R1 is the intimation given to the 3rd opposite party by the 1st opposite party.  Ext.R2 is the AD Card and postal receipts.  Ext.R3 is the copy of notice dated 13.1.2012.  Ext.R4 is statement of account.  Ext.R5 is the sale agreement.  No oral evidence adduced by both the parties.

          Heard both side.  The points that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service  from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

          The POINT :-  We have examined the entire materials on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us by both the parties.

          The case in hand is concerned with a vehicle loan and the demand notice issued by the 3rd opposite party, the Regional Transport Officer, Vandipperiyar.  It is an admitted fact that complainant availed a vehicle loan from 1st opposite party and due to the default in repayment of the EMI, he surrendered the vehicle to the 1st opposite party.  The version of the complainant is that at the time of taking possession of the vehicle, the 1st opposite party undertook that they will change the ownership of the vehicle from the name of the complainant to the auction purchaser and that complainant will be absolved from all the liabilities with regard to the vehicle.  But opposite party withdrawn from this promise and demanded a huge amount as vehicle loan dues and also opposite party had not changed the ownership of the vehicle as they ensured at the time of taking   possession of the vehicle.  Due to that, 3rd opposite party issued a demand notice to the complainant calling him to pay the vehicle tax arrears.  The version of the complainant is that due to the irresponsible attitude of the 1st opposite party, 3rd opposite party had issued such a notice to the complainant, eventhough the vehicle was auctioned to 2nd opposite party, 

(cont....5)

- 5 -

they had not cared to change  the ownership of the vehicle from his address.  Demanding of huge amount for a closed loan and non-changing of vehicle ownership from his name, caused much mental agony and hardships to the complainant.  These all happened only due to the irresponsible act of opposite parties 1 and 2 and both these opposite parties are bound to compensate the complainant adequately.

          On the contrary, the learned counsel for the 1st opposite party sticking on Exts.R4  and R5 documents and argued that 1st opposite party had not given any assurance at the time of taking the possession of the vehicle that they will change the RC ownership of the vehicle and that the complainant will be absolved from all the liabilities with regard to the vehicle loan. There was no such undertaking from the side of the 1st opposite party.  The counsel further argued that, the complainant is well aware that the vehicle was auctioned to 2nd opposite party as per Ext.R5   and still there is a huge amount is pending in his loan account as per Ext.R4.  By suppressing the facts, complainant approached this Forum with unclear hands.

          At the same time, learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party vehemently argued that, eventhough he was participated in the auction proceedings conducted by the 1st opposite party, by remitting an amount of Rs.15000/-, as earnest money and the vehicle is auctioned in his name, the 1st opposite party failed to deliver the vehicle to him due to the reason that, the RC Book is not available to them and thereby they cancelled the auction and refunded an amount of Rs.13,500/- to the 2nd opposite party, instead of Rs.15000/-.  For solving the issue, we have gone through the documents produced by both the parties.  None of the parties adduced any oral evidence.  By perusing the documents, the Forum is of a considered view that, it is the bounden duty of the 1st opposite party to transfer the registered ownership of a vehicle which they repossessed from the custody of the registered owner.  In this case, from the Ext.R5, it is seen that the     (cont....6)

- 6 -

vehicle  is auctioned to 2nd opposite party, Abdul Salam.  The exhibit is not challenged by 2nd opposite party.  Eventhough it is auctioned to the 2nd opposite party, it is the primary duty of the 1st opposite party, clear all the relevant records of the vehicle before delivering it to its auction purchaser.  But 1st opposite party failed to do so.  Due to that, the 3rd opposite party issued a letter against the complainant demanding for the tax arrears.  It is due to the latches and negligence from the part of 1st opposite party.  Hence 1st opposite party alone is liable to pay the tax arrears of the vehicle as per Ext.P1 demand notice.  

         In this case, it is admitted that, complainant availed vehicle loan and committed default in its repayment and surrendered the vehicle to the 1st opposite party.  Thereafter 1st opposite party auctioned the vehicle to some one and his whereabouts are not produced because the 2nd opposite party flatly denied the delivery of the vehicle to him.  At the same time, by perusing Ext.R3, it is seen that, this notice was issued against the complainant by 1st opposite party on 13.1.2012, calling him to settle the loan account of vehicle No.KL/5P/1611, within 10 days, i.e., on or before 23.1.2012.  But by perusing Ext.R5, the vehicle sale agreement, it is seen that, the vehicle was sold to the 2nd opposite party, on 19.1.2012.  By connecting Exts.R3 and R5, it is very clear that, the 1st opposite party sold the vehicle to 2nd opposite party, without waiting the time given to the complainant as per Ext.R3 to settle the matter.  That means, the opposite party hurriedly sold the vehicle to some one.  On a further perusal of Ext.R5, it is seen that, the value fixed for the vehicle is Rs.1,30,000/-.  If it is sold to that price, it should be credited in the loan account of the vehicle.    On perusal of the Ext.R4, loan account statement, we cannot find such an entry on 19.1.2012 or nearby date.  Hence by going through Exts.R3, R4 and R5, the Forum finds that the auction of the vehicle for an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- is not at all believable because except Ext.R5 sale agreement, no auction proceedings are produced before the Forum.  Moreover,  from the records,  it is very clear that the  1st opposite party       (cont....7)

- 7 -

has not given any chance to the complainant to settle the loan account.  Hence the version of the opposite party in this regard is suspicious and Forum is of the firm belief that opposite party may received a very high amount in the sale of the said vehicle and that amount may be sufficient for closing the actual loan  dues of the complainant.

On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, the evidence produced by the opposite party is not sufficient to prove that they sold the vehicle for a meagre amount or thrown away price of Rs.1,30,000/- since the vehicle is a 'Eicher Jumbo Lorry, 2003 model. 

          Under the above said circumstances the Forum directs the  1st opposite party   to close the loan account of the complainant as full and final and issue NOC of the vehicle in his favour, since opposite party failed to produce any document to show that the ownership of the vehicle is transferred from the name of the complainant.  1st opposite party is further directed to remit the tax dues as per Ext.P1 demand notice and also directed to pay   Rs.10000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

             Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2018

 

     Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

       Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

 

 

     (cont....7)

- 7 -

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -   demand notice issued by the 3rd opposite party.  

Ext.P2            -  the receipt issued by the 1st opposite party.  

Ext.P3            -  legal notice issued by the 1st opposite party.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1          -  the intimation given to the 3rd opposite party by 

    the 1st opposite party.  

Ext.R2         -  the AD Card and postal receipts.  

Ext.R3         -  the copy of notice dated 13.1.2012.  

Ext.R4         -  statement of account.  

Ext.R5         -  the sale agreement. 

 

 

           Forwarded by Order,

 

 

              SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT