Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/336/2018

P.Jayendra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Audi Chennai - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.B.L.Lavanya

28 Sep 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :15.12.2011 Date of disposal            :28.09.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                              THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.336/2018

 

DATED WEDNESDAY THE 28^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

P.Jeyendra,

2A, 9, Paduka Apartments,

1^st cross street,

CIT Colony, Chennai-4                                                           …..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

 

1). M/s.Audi India ,

Division of Volkswagen Group Sales India P Ltd

Rep.by its Managing Director,

III North Avenue, No.3 Maker Maxity,

Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra –East

Mumbai-400 051.

 

2).M/s. Audi Chennai,

Rep by Sr.General Manager,

Business Development & Strategy,

No.535, Anna Salai,

Nandanam, Chennai-35

 

3). Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager,

No.41, CIT nagar 1^st Main Rd,

Chennai-600 035..                                                         …..Opposite Parties

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                          : M/s. Lavanya Shankar

 

Counsel for 1^st  opposite party                    : M/s. A.R. Ramanathan

Counsel for 2^nd  opposite party                   : M/s. P.Arivudainambi &

      M.P. Mohandas

Counsel for  3^rd opposite party                   : M/s. R & P Partners

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER-II:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund the sum of Rs.5lac with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment till date of realization and to refund a sum of Rs.70,462/- debited to the complainant’s A/c towards EMI with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of debating till date of realization and refund any sum or amount that has been debited to the complainant’s A/c toward EMI with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of debiting till date of realization after filing of the complaint and to pay a sum of Rs.5 lac  as compensation for the mental agony & hardship caused to the complainant and to return all the documents parted by the complainant at the time of booking the vehicle and to pay cost of the proceedings.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.364/2011.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. by Proc.Rc.No.A1/2282/2018, Dated:11.09.2018 and taken on file as C.C. No.336/2018.

 

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted the he had intended to purchase a vehicle and approached the Ist opposite party and after hectic deliberations the 2^nd opposite party agreed to offer Audi 4 series for a price of Rs.26,65,000/-  and financing upto Rs.25,00,000/- by the 3^rd opposite party which was to be discharged by the complainant vide EMI @ Rs.70,462/- per month for a period of 36 months.  Based on the same the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs vide cheque No.994955 infavour of 2^nd opposite party and signed all the documents and the 2^nd opposite assured the delivery of vehicle on 30.09.2011.  The complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party regarding the delivery of vehicle since the delivery date was nearing but to his shock the 2^nd opposite party demanded additional amount of Rs.3.19 Lakhs from the complainant since double discount was extended on the actual value of vehicle.  The complainant was not willing  to pay the additional cost and 2^nd opposite party tried convincing and many e-mail correspondence exchanged between them.  Due to the reluctant nature of 2^nd opposite party for finalizing the price as fixed earlier, the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party that he was withdrawing from the sales process and requested them to refund Rs.5 Lakhs and return all the documents handed over during the booking and compensation for not upkeeping the assurance.  The 2^nd opposite party refunded the advance amount of Rs.5 Lakhs but the complainant rejected the same since the return of documents and compensation were not given.  Later the 2^ndopposite party refunded the same through NEFT to complainant account.  In the meanwhile, the EMI amount of Rs. 70,462/- was deducted for the months of Nov.2011 and Dec. 2011 from complainant account and credited into the account of 3^rd opposite party.  Although the 2^nd opposite party vide mail dated 22 Nov. 2011 informed about the foreclosure of loan, the 3^rd opposite party debited the amount and the same has not been till re-credited to complainant account.  The 2^nd opposite party conveyed that 3^rd opposite party informed that no deduction will be made towards EMI based on the stop order by complainants’ office, but no such order was issued by complainant.The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the arms of 1^st opposite party and all the three are liable for the deficiency of service.  The actions of the opposite parties that the vehicle was not delivered within time for the agreed amount, without delivering the vehicle the EMI was deducted from the complainant account and not returning the documents and adequate compensation constitute deficiency of service for which the complainant has to be adequately compensated. 

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

The 1^st opposite party deny each and every averment made by the complainant is false and put the complainant in to strict proof of the same.  The 1^st opposite party is the manufacture of vehicle and based on the orders placed by the dealers the vehicle will be supplied.  The relationship between 1^st opposite party and dealers is on principle to principle and 1^st opposite party being a sales company provides customers through its dealers, a warranty for certain period on the vehicle sold by such dealer upon certain terms and conditions.  The warranty given by the 1^st opposite party is exclusively limited to the extent of quality and potency of the vehicle supplied by it to the dealer and does not cover any other aspects.  The 1^st opposite party denies that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are arms of 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party states that they are misjoinder in this complaint.  In the complaint there is no allegation against 1^st opposite party and the complaint may be dismissed against the 1^st opposite party. 

3.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

The 2^nd opposite party deny each and every averment made by the complainant is false and put the complainant in to strict proof of the same.  The 2^nd opposite party states that the complainant agreed for ex-showroom price of Rs.26,70,000/- after the discount of Rs.3,01,000/- but inclusive of registration and insurance tax for the Audi A4 Version 1.8 TFSI vehicle and signed the sales contract on 29.09.2011 and paid a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as advance.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that complainant failed to make the balance amount of Rs.21,70,000/- and without making full amount the question of delivery of vehicle does not arise.  The 2^nd opposite party states that as per the terms of sales contract, 2^nd opposite party has to deliver the vehicle within 3 days from the date of realization of 100% payment.  Since the complainant has not arranged with his financier to make the full payment to 2^nd opposite party, the allegations by the complainant against the 2^nd opposite are devoid of merits.  The 2^nd opposite party strongly denies the allegation of assurance that net of additional discount of Rs.35,000/- offered to compensate for 1% interest charge on financing of Rs.25,00,000/- extended by the 3^rd opposite party, which was originally committed to be at 0% financing.  The 2^nd opposite party time and again informed the complainant that either he can opt for discount from 2^nd opposite party or Zero percent finance scheme for the loan amount, but the complainant was extended 2 benefits/discounts from both 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties inadvertently.  It was purely due to mistake of fact on the part of 3^rd respondent and the 3^rd opposite party role was only to sanction loan and they have no authority to give any subvention either on his own or on behalf of 2^ndopposite party without ascertaining the fact that the complainant was already given Rs.3,01,000/- as discount.  If two discounts are allowed, it would amount to double discount and 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties will put to great loss and the same was explained to complainant through letters dated 15.10.2011 and 19.10.2011.  The 2^nd opposite party denies the allegation of unfair trade practice for demanding the amount of Rs.3.19 lakhs.  The 2^nd opposite took all the efforts to materialize the contract, but the complainant refused to accept for the payment of Rs.3.19 lakhs and finally as sought by complainant the 2^nd opposite party refunded the advance amount Rs.5 Lakhs by cheque on 14.11.2011 which was not accepted by the complainant demanding the documents submitted to the 3^rd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that 3^rd opposite party have replied that all those documents cannot be returned notwithstanding the foreclosure of the loan amount and the 3^rd opposite party can do the best is either issuing a cancellation or no due certificate.  However, the 2^nd opposite party recredited the advance amount to complainant account.  Similarly, the loan amount received by 2^nd opposite party from 3^rd opposite party on 13.10.2011 had also be recredited to 3^rd respondent on 02.12.2011 with applicable interest.  The 2^nd opposite party submits the as per contract the cancellation charges of Rs.1,50,000/- was not deducted from the advance amount.  The 2^nd opposite party states once the advance amount repaid and the loan amount was refunded to 3^rd opposite party there is no connection between complainant and opposite parties.   Regarding the deduction of EMI for the month of Nov. 2011, the same has been recredited by the 3^rd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that no case has been made out from this complaint against 2^nd opposite party either for an alleged deficiency of service or for an unfair trade practice or for mental agony and hardship and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE THIRD OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

The 3^rd opposite party deny each and every averment made by the complainant is false and put the complainant in to strict proof of the same.  The 3^rd opposite party is registered as a private limited company under the companies act, 1956 and is a separate legal entity.  The 3^rd opposite party strongly denies the allegation of the complainant that it is an arm of 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party submits that the complainant had applied for a vehicle loan from the 3^rd opposite party under 1% scheme and had executed necessary loan documents with the 3^rd opposite party.  Pursuant thereto, the vehicle loan of Rs.25,00,000/- was disbursed by the Third opposite party on 12.10.2022.   Thereafter two EMIs @ Rs.70,462/- were cleared for the month of 10 Nov. 2011 and 10 Dec. 2011 through ECS.  The third opposite submits that complainant never informed about the cancellation of vehicle purchase and the 3^rd opposite party came to know this through other opposite parties and immediately pre closed the loan and returned the two EMIs amount of Rs.1,40,924/- through NEFT to complainant account on 29 December 2011 and no pre-closure or foreclosure charges were imposed by 3^rd opposite party.  The third opposite party submits that it was the complainant who has availed the loan and it was his responsibility to inform the 3^rd opposite party about pre-closure of loan rather he made 3^rd opposite party as one the party and from the above, it is very clear there was no deficiency of service on the part of 3^rd opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A11 were marked on his side and written arguments.  The opposite parties filed proof affidavits and Ex.B1to B10 were marked on the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties side and all the opposite parties filed written version and written arguments. The 3^rd opposite party filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked on his side.

6. POINT NO 1 :-

          The complainant had intended to purchase a vehicle and approached the Ist opposite party and after hectic deliberations the 2^nd opposite party agreed to offer Audi 4 series for a price of Rs.26,65,000/-  and financing upto Rs.25,00,000/- by the 3^rd opposite party which was to be discharged by the complainant vide EMI @ Rs.70,462/- per month for a period of 36 months.  Based on the same the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs vide cheque No.994955 infavour of 2^nd opposite party and signed all the documents and the 2^nd opposite assured the delivery of vehicle on 30.09.2011.  The complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party regarding the delivery of vehicle since the delivery date was nearing but to his shock the 2^nd opposite party demanded additional amount of Rs.3.19 Lakhs from the complainant since double discount was extended on the actual value of vehicle.  The complainant was not willing  to pay the additional cost and 2^nd opposite party tried convincing and many e-mail correspondence exchanged between them.  Due to the reluctant nature of 2^nd opposite party for finalizing the price as fixed earlier, the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party that he was withdrawing from the sales process and requested them to refund Rs.5 Lakhs and return all the documents handed over during the booking and compensation for not upkeeping the assurance.  The 2^nd opposite party refunded the advance amount of Rs.5 Lakhs but the complainant rejected the same since the return of documents and compensation were not given.  Later the 2^ndopposite party refunded the same through NEFT to complainant account.  In the meanwhile, the EMI amount of Rs. 70,462/- was deducted for the months of Nov.2011 and Dec. 2011 from complainant account and credited into the account of 3^rd opposite party.  Although the 2^nd opposite party vide mail dated 22 Nov. 2011 informed about the foreclosure of loan, the 3^rd opposite party debited the amount and the same has not been till re-credited to complainant account.  The 2^nd opposite party conveyed that 3^rd opposite party informed that no deduction will be made towards EMI based on the stop order by complainants’ office, but no such order was issued by complainant. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the arms of 1^st opposite party and all the three are liable for the deficiency of service.  The action of the opposite parties that the vehicle was not delivered within time for the agreed amount, without delivering the vehicle the EMI was deducted from the complainant account and not returning the documents and adequate compensation constitute deficiency of service for which the complainant has to be adequately compensated. 

          7. The 1^st opposite party is the manufacture of vehicle and based on the orders placed by the dealers the vehicle will be supplied.  The relationship between 1^st opposite party and dealers is on principle to principle and 1^st opposite party being a sales company provides customers through its dealers, a warranty for certain period on the vehicle sold by such dealer upon certain terms and conditions.  The warranty given by the 1^st opposite party is exclusively limited to the extent of quality and potency of the vehicle supplied by it to the dealer and does not cover any other aspects.  The 1^st opposite party denies that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are arms of 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party states that they are misjoinder in this complaint.  In the complaint there is no allegation against 1^st opposite party and the complaint may be dismissed. 

          8. The 2^nd opposite party states that the complainant agreed for ex-showroom price of Rs.26,70,000/- after the discount of Rs.3,01,000/- but inclusive of registration and insurance tax for the Audi A4 Version 1.8 TFSI vehicle and signed the sales contract on 29.09.2011 and paid a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as advance.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that complainant failed to make the balance amount of Rs.21,70,000/- and without making full amount the question of delivery of vehicle does not arise.  The 2^nd opposite party states that as per the terms of sales contract, 2^nd opposite party has to deliver the vehicle within 3 days from the date of realization of 100% payment.  Since the complainant has not arranged with his financier to make the full payment to 2^nd opposite party, the allegations by the complainant against the 2^nd opposite are devoid of merits.  The 2^nd opposite party strongly denies the allegation of assurance that net of additional discount of Rs.35,000/- offered to compensate for 1% interest charge on financing of Rs.25,00,000/- extended by the 3^rd opposite party, which was originally committed to be at 0% financing.  The 2^nd opposite party time and again informed the complainant that either he can opt for discount from 2^nd opposite party or Zero percent finance scheme for the loan amount, but the complainant was extended 2 benefits/discounts from both 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties inadvertently.  It was purely due to mistake of fact on the part of 3^rd respondent and the 3^rd opposite party role was only to sanction loan and they have no authority to give any subvention either on his own or on behalf of 2^ndopposite party without ascertaining the fact that the complainant was already given Rs.3,01,000/- as discount.  If two discounts are allowed, it would amount to double discount and 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties will put to great loss and the same was explained to complainant through letters dated 15.10.2011 and 19.10.2011.  The 2^nd opposite party denies the allegation of unfair trade practice for demanding the amount of Rs.3.19 lakhs.  The 2^nd opposite took all the efforts to materialize the contract, but the complainant refused to accept for the payment of Rs.3.19 lakhs and finally as sought by complainant the 2^nd opposite party refunded the advance amount Rs.5 Lakhs by cheque on 14.11.2011 which was not accepted by the complainant demanding the documents submitted to the 3^rd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that 3^rd opposite party have replied that all those documents cannot be returned notwithstanding the foreclosure of the loan amount and the 3^rd opposite party can do the best is either issuing a cancellation or no due certificate.  However, the 2^nd opposite party recredited the advance amount to complainant account.  Similarly, the loan amount received by 2^nd opposite party from 3^rd opposite party on 13.10.2011 had also be recredited to 3^rd respondent on 02.12.2011 with applicable interest.  The 2^nd opposite party submits the as per contract the cancellation charges of Rs.1,50,000/- was not deducted from the advance amount.  The 2^nd opposite party states once the advance amount repaid and the loan amount was refunded to 3^rd opposite party there is no connection between complainant and opposite parties.   Regarding the deduction of EMI for the month of Nov. 2011, the same has been recredited by the 3^rd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that no case has been made out from this complaint against 2^nd opposite party either for an alleged deficiency of service or for an unfair trade practice or for mental agony and hardship and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

          9. The 3^rd opposite party is registered as a private limited company under the companies act, 1956 and is a separate legal entity.  The 3^rd opposite party strongly denies the allegation of the complainant that it is an arm of 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party submits that the complainant had applied for a vehicle loan from the 3^rd opposite party under 1% scheme and had executed necessary loan documents with the 3^rd opposite party.  Pursuant thereto, the vehicle loan of Rs.25,00,000/- was disbursed by the Third opposite party on 12.10.2022.   Thereafter two EMIs @ Rs.70,462/- were cleared for the month of 10 Nov. 2011 and 10 Dec. 2011 through ECS.  The third opposite submits that complainant never informed about the cancellation of vehicle purchase and the 3^rd opposite party came to know this through other opposite parties and immediately pre closed the loan and returned the two EMIs amount of Rs.1,40,924/- through NEFT to complainant account on 29 December 2011 and no pre-closure or foreclosure charges were imposed by 3^rd opposite party.  The third opposite party submits that it was the complainant who has availed the loan and it was his responsibility to inform the 3^rd opposite party about pre-closure of loan rather he made 3^rd opposite party as one the party and from the above, it is very clear there was no deficiency of service on the part of 3^rd opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

10.  The complainant had intended to purchase a vehicle and approached the Ist opposite party and after hectic deliberations the 2^nd opposite party agreed to offer Audi 4 series for a price of Rs.26,65,000/-.  As per the Sales Contract executed by Complainant and 2^nd opposite party which is marked as Ex.B2, it is evident that the vehicle rate was Rs.26,70,000/- which is inclusive of Registration and Insurance.  As per the bank statement of Complainant which is marked as Ex. A1, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance and there is no dispute in this regard.  The complainant wishes to avail a vehicle loan from 3^rd opposite party for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and as per the loan sanction letter dated 12.10.2011 of 3^rd opposite party vide Loan Account No.20111002216 which is marked as Ex.B3, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was sanctioned by the 3^rd opposite party.   The 3^rd opposite party in their averments mentioned that the loan was paid to 2^nd opposite party on 12.10.2011. 

11.  The complainant alleged that 2^nd opposite party assured the date of delivery of vehicle would be on 30.09.2011 and the complainant called the 2^nd opposite party regarding delivery since the date was nearing.  At this juncture the 2^nd opposite party vide their mail dated 15^th October 2011 which is marked Ex. A2 informed the complainant that double reduction was given on the actual value of the car which was an inadvertent human error. Further they requested the complainant to release Rs.3.19 Lakhs to complete the transaction.  Thereafter a series of mails and meetings were took place between complainant and 2^nd opposite party to complete the contract which are marked as Ex.A3 to A6.  Finally the complainant through mail dated 18.11.2011 which is marked as Ex.A8 opted for refund of advance amount paid with compensation and return of all original documents.  On the other hand the 2^nd opposite party in their averments stated that two discounts were extended to complainant whereas the complainant is eligible for only one discount and it was a mistake by 3^rd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party  alleged that the complainant executed the loan agreement on 10.10.2011 only.  The 2^nd opposite party in their averments stated that as per contract the vehicle will be delivered within 3 days from the date of 100% realization of funds and the complainant had not made the balance amount before the due date i.e. 30.09.2011 and hence there is no deficiency of service.  The 2^nd opposite party in their averments clearly mentioned that “Having agreed and accepted the terms and conditions and signed the sales contract and the loan agreement, both the sales contract and loan agreement shall be concluded contract/agreement in the eye of law and become legally binding on both the parties to the sales contract and the loan agreement”.    The contract was binding on both the parties but whereas the 2^nd opposite party only violated the terms and conditions of contract.  As per the sales contract the sale price of vehicle was Rs.26,70,000/- The complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance.  The 3^rd opposite party had sanctioned a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- and paid to 2^nd opposite party. Hence the total amount exceeds the sales contract amount of Rs.26,70,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that except sanctioning letter, there was no communication between complainant and 3^rd opposite party and from the averments it is concluded that 2^nd opposite party played a role in between complainant and 3^rd opposite party.  The loan amount was released on 12.10.2011 and the complainant had sent his request for refund of advance only on 18.11.2011.  As contended by the 2^nd opposite party that vehicle would be released within 3 days from the date of 100% realization of funds and in that case, he could have released the vehicle between 12.10.2011 to 18.10.2011 to complete the sales contract instead of demanding additional amount of Rs.3.19 lakhs from the complainant.  Hence it is observed from the above that the contention of 2^nd opposite party is not maintainable and demanding additional sum of Rs.3.19 lakhs under the shadow of double discount is clearly an unfair trade practice.

12.  The complainant in his averments alleged that the documents were not returned by the 3^rd opposite party and hence he rejected the refund of advance of Rs.5 Lakhs.  According to 2^nd opposite party that the complainant had signed in the loan documents and the loan was sanctioned and paid to 2^nd opposite party and in this regard the 3^rd opposite party have replied that all those documents cannot be returned notwithstanding the foreclosure of the loan amount and the 3^rd opposite party can do the best is either issuing a cancellation or no due certificate.  No proof of document was filed by any party.  The 3^rd opposite party contended that the complainant had applied and taken loan and it was the onus of complainant to inform the 3^rd opposite party regarding cancellation of sales contract but the 3^rd opposite party pre closed the loan based on the information available from 2^nd opposite party. When the loan was pre-closed unilaterally by the 3^rd opposite party at the instance of 2^nd opposite party then it was the duty of the 3^rd opposite party to inform the complainant regarding pre-closure and issue no due certificate.   Based on above, it is found that though the complainant has requested for return of entire loan documents since the loan itself is pre-closed such return of documents is not possible but on the otherhand the 3^rd opposite party as contended by him can issue no due certificate to the complainant and the non issue of no due certificate and non returning of documents and not informing the complainant regarding pre-closure amount to deficiency of service on the part of 3^rd opposite party.

13.  The complainant alleged that without effecting the delivery of vehicle, the EMI for a sum of Rs. 70,462/- was debited on 10.11.2011 from his bank account and the bank statement marked as Ex.A7.  According to Ex.A9, the mail dated 19.11.2011, 2^nd opposite party replied that 3^rd opposite party had received a stop order for payment from the complainant office.  The complainant in his averments denied such order from their side.  The 2^nd opposite party vide their mail dated 22.11.2011 which is marked as Ex.A10 informed that 3^rd opposite party have foreclosed the loan amount.  The 3^rd opposite party on the other hand in their averments stated that the complainant ought to have informed the 3^rd opposite party regarding cancellation of purchase of vehicle.  In the present instance only after filing the complaint, the 3^rd opposite party became aware that the complainant had cancelled the booking of the vehicle.  The 3^rd opposite party further said in their averments states that the loan was sanctioned on 12.10.2011, 1^st EMI was deducted on 10^th Nov. 2011 and 2^nd EMI was deducted on 10 Dec.2011 and immediately after knowing the cancellation of sales contract the 3^rd opposite party refunded the amount of Rs.1,40,924/- on 29.12.2011.  But the 2^nd opposite party in their averments stated that loan amount was refunded to 3^rd opposite party with interest on 02.12.2011 itself.  Despite the return of loan with interest by 2^nd opposite party to 3^rd opposite party, 3^rd opposite party debited EMI from complainant account 10.12.2011 and the refunded the amount on 29.12.2012 without interest.  Since the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party have refunded the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.70462/- alone to the complainant and they were having benefit of the amount the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are liable to pay interest for the above said amount till the date re-credit of amount  to the complainant .  Hence it is observed that the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is not maintainable and thereby the 3^rd opposite party committed deficiency of service and liable to pay interest for the EMIs deducted from the date of deduction to date of re-credit into the account of complainant. 

14.  The complainant alleged that 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are arms of the 1^st opposite party and hence they are liable for the all the actions alongwith 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  The 1^st opposite party in their averments stated that 1^st opposite party is the manufacture of vehicle and based on the orders placed by the dealers the vehicle will be supplied.  The relationship between 1^st opposite party and dealers is on principle to principle and 1^st opposite party being a sales company provides customers through its dealers, a warranty for certain period on the vehicle sold by such dealer upon certain terms and conditions.  The warranty given by the 1^st opposite party is exclusively limited to the extent of quality and potency of the vehicle supplied by it to the dealer and does not cover any other aspects.  The 1^st opposite party denies that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are arms of 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is registered as a private limited company under the companies act, 1956 and is a separate legal entity.  The 3^rd opposite party strongly denies the allegation of the complainant that it is an arm of 1^st opposite party.  From the averments of the opposite parties, it is concluded that there was no specific allegation against the 1^st opposite party and the contention of complainant is not maintainable and hence it is found  there is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party and it is further found that the 2^nd 3^rd opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Point no 1 answered accordingly.

15. Point. No.2:-

          Based on findings given by the point. No.1, since, the 2nd opposite party violated the terms and conditions of sales contract entered between 2^nd opposite party and complainant and caused deficiency of service and indulged in unfair trade practice.  The 3^rd opposite party caused deficiency of service by not issuing cancellation or no due certificate and interest on EMIs deducted.   The complaint against 1^stopposite party is not proved.  Though in the complaint the complainant prayed for refund of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and refund of Rs.70462/- with interest since those amounts were admittedly re-credited to the complainant account and complainant himself in the proof affidavit has restricted and prayed only for interest on the refunded amount of Rs.5 lac and interest on refunded amount of Rs.70462/- and hence the complainant is not entitled for the prayer for refund of Rs.5 lac and Rs.70462/-   Point.no.2 is answered accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The 3^rd opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant :

1. Interest @ 9% for the Ist EMI amount of Rs. 70,462/ from 10.11.2011 to 29.12.2011.
2. Interest @ 9% for the IInd EMI amount of Rs.70,462/- from 10.12.2011 to 29.12.2011 And the 3^rd opposite party is directed to issue cancellation or no due certificate of loan to the complainant.
3. The 2^nd opposite  party is liable to pay to the complainant Interest @ 9% for the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from  29.11.2011 to 03.12.2011.
4.  both 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and hardship sustained by the complainant and to pay a  sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to cost of this complaint.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

          The complaint against 1^st Opposite party is dismissed.

 

Dictated  by the Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28^th  day of  September 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	29.09.11	Complainant’s bank statement
Ex.A2	15.10.2011	Mail addressed by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A3	19.10.11	Mail addressed by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A4	28.10.11	Mail addressed by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A5	28.10.11	Mail addressed by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A6	28.10.11	Mail addressed by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A7	10.11.11	Complainants bank statement
Ex.A8	18.11.11	Mail addressed by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A9	19.11.11	Mail addressed by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A10	22.11.11	Mail addressed by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A11	25.11.11	Mail addressed by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1

24.11.2011

Authorization letter

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B2	29.9.2011	Sale contract between the complainant and 2nd opposite party
Ex.B3	29.09.2011	Terms and conditions of the contract.
Ex.B4	12.10.2011	Sanction letter of 3rd opposite party.
Ex.B5	15.10.2011	Mail sent by 2nd opposite party to complainant.
Ex.B6	19.10.2011	Mail sent by 2nd opposite party to complainant.
Ex.B7	28.10.2011	Mail sent by complainant to 2nd opposite party.
Ex.B8	28.10.2011	Mail sent by 2nd opposite party to complainant.
Ex.B9	19.11.2011	Mail sent by 2nd opposite party to complainant.
Ex.B10	22.11.2011	Mail sent by 2nd opposite party to complainant.

 

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT