Complaint filed on: 16-06-2011
Disposed on: 30-04-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.1087/2011
DATED THIS THE 30th APRIL 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
Mr.Saravana.B. S/o. Babu.T,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No.62, H.Krishnojirao building,
Near Rajarajeshwari temple,
Rajarajeshwari nagar,
Bangalore-98
V/s
Opposite parties: -
1. M/s. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd,
A company registered under the Companies Act, Having its registered office at 1st Floor, C/o. Planet Bajaj Showroom, Opposite Tara chambers, near Kamal Bajaj Udiyan, Mumbai Pune road,
Wakdewadi, Pune-03
2. M/s. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd,
Having its branch office at Anugraha, No.29, 12th cross, Swimming pool extension,
P.G.Halli main road, Sudheendranagar, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-03
Reptd by its Branch Manager,
O R D E R
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER.
The brief facts of the complaint filed by complainant against Ops are that he had purchased Bajaj Pulsar bike from Popular Motors. At the time of purchase the loan agent of Op 1 and 2 has shown interest to sanction loan and the complainant was convinced by the promises made by Ops, agreed to avail loan from Ops. As per the terms of loan agreement, the complainant was required to pay Rs.1,750/- as monthly EMI for 36 months to the ops. As agreed by the agreement, the complainant was paying his EMI regularly without fail. On 24/2/2010, complainant parked his vehicle in front of Bata showroom situated at 24th cross, 9th main BSK 2nd stage, Bangalore and had been to a client’s place, complainant came back in the evening found the utter shock that his vehicle was missing. The complainant has made enquiries but was not able to locate his vehicle. He preferred a police complainant before the Banashankari Police under crime no.57/2010.Even complainant enquired with Ops that whether they have seized the vehicle. Op2 replied to the complaint filed by complainant before them dated 26/2/2010 stating that they have not seized the vehicle. The complainant submitted that he is doing his articleship with charted accountant, and for his daily conveyance he spent Rs.500/- per a day only due to non availability of personal vehicle. The complainant made repeated enquiries with police but negative response from them that vehicle was not traced yet. After theft also he paid his EMI’s regularly. On 21/11/2010 Banashankari police had called the complainant and told that the vehicle is traced out which is in the possession of Op2. The complainant was shocked that vehicle was exposed to air, light and rain and vehicle’s paint and other body parts had developed rust and vehicle had lost its look, it was manhandled and totally became useless. Since the complainant was unable to bear the transportation costs and as such he got his vehicle released from the court to avoid further losses and damage. Later, complainant contacted the OP 2 on several times and demanded to reimburse loss caused due to their negligence and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- though he paid regular EMI’s without fail, Op 2 has seized the vehicle and caused mental agony and hardship. The complainant requested them the same by issuing letter dated 4/1/2011, and in turn Op 2 replied and promised to pay compensation due to the negligent act of collection agent of Op 2 but did not pay money. Therefore the complainant approached this forum seeking direction to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards litigation and Rs.35,000/- towards mental agony, hardship, inconvenience caused by the Ops for no fault of the complainant.
2. Notice sent to Op 2 only (hereinafter referred as Op only in place of Op 2) which was duly served on Op. Op appeared before the forum and at the stage of arguments OP 2 filed his statement of objection. Op has admitted that he financed to complainant for the purchase of pulsar vehicle and on 24/2/2010 the vehicle of the complainant has been seized wrongly by him and there was one more Mr. Sharavana.B who availed financial facility from Op and he was chronic defaulter. At the time of update of vehicle registration number in the system by clerical staff the registration no. of vehicle of complainant has wrongly updated in the loan account of another Sharavana who is defaulter. Therefore the vehicle of the complainant was seized instead of defaulter’s vehicle though he is a regular payee of EMI’s. He also admitted that without verifying the registration no. of vehicle of the complainant which was seized, endorsed to the complainant that the vehicle of the complainant is not in his possession. Op stated in his version that Op has disposed off the vehicle of the complainant to one of the highest bidder or buyer. After purchase, the buyer has applied for Duplicate Registration Certificate, for transfer of name and cancellation of hypothecation before RTO. At that time RTO authorities have issued notice to the complainant stating that second purchaser has applied for duplicate RC and so on. With the help of police, the complainant recollected the vehicle as per law. Op contended that the complainant is debtor and Op is creditor in this case. Therefore, there is no consumer relationship with Op to file this complainant under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He also contended that the issue has been settled before jurisdictional police. The claim of complainant for Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation before this forum is not fair. Hence, Op prayed to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable since it is already settled before police.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their complaint and Mr.Jinu.K.Mohan, an area Manager legal has filed an affidavit on behalf of Op, reproducing what he has stated in his version. The complainant filed some documents along with his complaint namely Xerox copy of R.C book, original bank statement, copy of police complaint, original FIR copy, copy of letter dated 26/2/2010 issued by Op, copy of letter dated 4/1/2011, reply letter of Op dated 5/3/2011, copy of police report and release order, loan term sheet copy, copy of appointment letter to prove he is employed for articleship with charted accountant, copy of bill issued by advocate engaged for the purpose of defending crime no 57/2010 for Rs.5,000/-, copy of letter issued by his employer stating that he is efficient in his work, and he is entitled to get enhanced salary of Rs.2,000/-and postal receipts addressed to Ops. Op also produced some documents like loan agreement copy, account statement copies of both Saravana.B , copy of letter issued by OP to the Sub Inspector, Banashankari Police station regarding handing over the vehicle no. KA 41 S 2369. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the records and written arguments filed by both the parties.
4. On the above materials, following points for determination arise.
1. Whether the complainant has proved that the Op is caused negligent in his service by illegal seizure of vehicle of the complainant?
2. To what relief the complainants are entitled to?
5. Our findings on the above points are:
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: See the Final order
REASONS
6. Answer on Point No.1: After going through the contention of the complainant and Op, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant has availed financial assistance for the purchase of Pulsar bike from Op and the repayment schedule has stipulated according to the loan agreement and it was fixed as 36 installment for Rs.1,750/- as EMI towards repayment. According to the statement of loan account produced by Op, the complainant was regularly paying his EMI’s till the date and even Op admitted it. But the vehicle of the complainant was seized on 24/2/2010 by the Op under the impression that the said vehicle belongs to one more Saravana.B who is habitual defaulter in repaying the loan. Due to the mistake or negligently updated in the entry made by the officials of Op that in place of vehicle registration no. of defaulter, entered the registration no. of the complainant. This mistake caused so much of hardship to the complainant. He was shocked when he found no vehicle was found in place where he had parked. Immediately he filed criminal case before Banashankari police station and FIR was prepared under crime no. 57/2010. Even he asked Op regarding the bike and intimated regarding the theft of the vehicle. Op replied to his request dated 26/2/2010 stating that the vehicle no.KA 41 L 2369 is not in his possession. In case the wrong entry is made by the official of Op can be acceptable but atleast Op should have become alert when he was replying for the complaint received from the victim. Op should have verified it before endorsing to the complaint of the complainant when they knew that there are two person of same name have availed financial assistance from him. The wrongful act of OP in making seizure of complainant has caused much hardship and mental agony to the complainant as he was not defaulter in paying EMI.
7. Besides OP has act so negligently that he has not issued any kind of notice to the complainant prior to sale of said vehicle. Op has not produced a notice copy to the forum to prove that they have served notice to either of the Saravana.B before making sale. The intimation of sale has been given by RTO office to the complainant since, theft of said vehicle was registered in the police station. As per the legal procedure, the vehicle was released to the complainant through court and police. It is admitted by the Op in letter addressed to Banashankari police sub-inspector which is produced by Op.
8. As we have gone through the documents produced by Op in respect of both the customers named as Saravana.B. One is Saravana.B who is complainant and another is Saravanan.B who is defaulter according to Op. May be the slight change in the name caused so much of confusion, but the loan agreement no. is different, amount availed is different. In the document produced by Op registration no. of both the customers (Saravana.B and Saravanan.B) are same i.e. KA 41 L 2369 only. It indicates Op is so negligent in his service without cross verification of entries, they acted negligently and made the customers/public to suffer for their no fault.
9. Due to the negligent act of Op, complainant has not only suffered financial loss but also reputation in the society. The complainant has been employed in chartered accountant’s firm and is doing his articleship there as chartered accountant. As per the employer of the complainant, he is efficient professional and he is entitled to promote from his position. As we understand the situation of the complainant, even though he was not having his own conveyance, he achieved so much. In Bangalore, traveling is most difficult task for the employees to attend their work place. Here Op has caused unnecessary trouble to the complainant by seizing his vehicle with no fault of him. In such a situation Op has made him to roam around police station and court to recover the vehicle. If Op had given correct information to the complainant when he complained about the theft of the vehicle, he would not have moved to police station and court in search of his vehicle by leaving his valuable work. Since, February 2010 to September 2010 the complainant had no vehicle to attend his day to day work, when he attended his work means he might have spent lot of money for the conveyance and suffered lot of inconvenience. The complainant has produced bill to prove the payment of Rs.5,000/- to the advocate to deal the criminal case no. 57/2010. In addition to it, Op disposed the vehicle without giving prior notice to the vehicle owner who is complainant. This is another form of negligence on the part of Op.
10. The above all facts are not denied by the Op and also admitted that negligence has caused on his part. But Op is not ready to pay compensation to the complainant only on the ground that while handing over the vehicle the complainant has settled the case before Police officials. Therefore he is not liable to pay. In our view, the complainant might have got his vehicle through police but compensation issue has not been raised and settled there. Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation and conveyance charges what he spent to attend day to day work. So complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,500/- p.m as monthly pass of Volvo bus but not Rs.500/- per day as claimed in the complaint. The OP is total negligent in discharging duty as a service provider. Incase Op adopts such a negligence in future to other customers who avail assistance from him, it really causes harassment and embarrassment to them. This kind of harassment must have been faced by many more public. But all victims will not come forward to exercise their rights. It is only the complainant who has come to forum to establish his right by raising voice against the high handed acts of OP. To stop such illegal seizure of vehicles of prompt and sincere customers and illegal sale of seized vehicle without issuing notice in future and to stop such harassment to the customers and making unjust enrichment, unfair trade practice, Op is liable to pay punitive damages. Accordingly, we answer point no. 1 in affirmative and proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Complaint is allowed partly.
Op 2 is liable to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony, hardship, inconvenience caused due to negligence of Op 2.
OP 2 is liable to pay Rs.1,500/- p.m towards conveyance charges from February 2010 to September 2010.
Op 2 is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- towards punitive damages as per 14(1) of CP Act.
Op 2 is liable to pay Rs. 2,500/- towards cost of this litigation.
The above ordered amount shall pay within 30 days from the date this order.
Failing which Op shall pay 10% interest p.a from the date of February 2010 till it is repaid.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 30th day of April 2012.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
