Order-20.
Date-04/10/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that he is an unemployed educated youth and decided to venture into transportation business to meet his livelihood. He decided to purchase one Indigo ECS Luxury car made of TATA Motors Ltd. for giving it on rent on hire to the companies to earn his livelihood. He approached OP1 being KB Motors Ltd., dealer of Cars and also paid Rs.5,000/- as down payment to OP1 on 30-04-2015 vide cheque being No.024156. OP1 also took signature of the complainant in some printed forms and in blank papers for purpose of loan documents to be prepared with Financing Company for sanction of such loan and assured that sanction of loan under hire purchase agreement to be completed within a week and car to be delivered immediately thereafter. It is stated by the complainant that OP1, thereafter, instead of delivering the said vehicle took money from the complainant on several occasions on various pleas, i.e. registration charges, insurance charges etc. totalling a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- but OP1 failed and neglected to deliver the said vehicle to the complainant. From the statement of account of the complainant it is also revealing that the complainant has paid Rs.1,55,000/- for purchase of the car. But OP1 did not deliver any car to the complainant and, as such, there is negligence and deficiency of service for which the complainant has suffered pecuniary loss. The complainant subsequently all on a sudden received a letter from OP2 that there is default of payment of two instalments aggregating Rs.29,832/- as on 01-22-2015 and requested the complainant to pay the said amount. The case of the complainant is that he did not receive any car from OP1 in spite of payment of Rs.1,55,000/- and, as such, question of payment of instalment to OP2 does not arise. Hence, this case.
OP1 has contested the case in filing written statement contending, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in fact and the complainant is not a consumer in terms of C.P. Act. It is stated that as the car was purchased for commercial purpose the complainant is to bring the commercial offer letter from the State Transport Authority. It is clearly mentioned in the brochure of this answering OP that commercial offer letter, permit, registration is not in dealer’s hand and the complainant himself is to bring the required documents and the complainant could not obtain any offer letter or permit and, as such, the car could not be registered and delivered to the complainant. it is also stated that the complainant applied for the loan long back and he booked the car in the month of April and his loan was sanctioned in the month of June and OP had to keep the car in their custody and the complainant could not bring the required documents from the Transport
Authority for which the car cannot be processed for commercial purpose. The complainant failed to repay the EMI and is a defaulter towards the finance company. Finance Company took back the loan along with interest for being defaulter. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the case should be dismissed against this OP.
OPs2 and 3 have also contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable against the OP and the case is bad in law. It is stated that these answering OPs disbursed loan to the complainant on 26-06-2015 and the processing of loan was made by OPs 2 and 3 based upon the application of the complainant. The physical delivery of the car does not fall within the capacity and work of finance company like that of OPs 2 and 3. These answering OPs also submit that they had sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.4,57,000/- and when OPs2 and 3 were intimated that no physical car was actually delivered, OPs 2 and 3 in such circumstances and on good faith it cancelled the loan amount and, thereafter, no demand of any amount was made to the complainant from the end of OPs 2 and 3. It is stated that complainant cannot have any allegation or complaint against OPs 2 and 3. It is also stated that OPs2 and 3 never claimed any arrear amount of instalment with interest after cancellation of the loan. These OPs stated that the instant complaint should be rejected with cost in favour of OPs 2 and 3.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs or any of the OPs are deficient in rendering services to the complainant?
- Whether the OPs or any of the OPs have adopted unfair trade practice?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled over the documents on record i.e. Xerox copies of money receipts issued by the OP1, Debtor-Ledger of OP1, letter for outstanding EMIs of Rs.29,832/- as filed from the side of the complainant.
From the documents on record it appears that the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.1,55,000/- to the OP1 as against the purchase of one Indigo ECS Luxury Car, a commercial vehicle as advance. It also appears that the complainant also approached OP2 for availing a loan towards financing the said car. OP2 also disbursed loan amount of Rs.4,57,000/- and paid in the account of OP1 on 27-06-2015 since the payment is made directly to the dealer of the car. It is alleged by OP1 that the car was purchased for commercial purpose and the complainant is to bring the commercial offer letter from the appropriate Transport Authority. We find that it is clearly mentioned in the brochure of OP1 that commercial offer letter, permit, registration is not in dealer’s hand and the dealer is not responsible for any delay of the said matter. We find that the complainant was required to bring the commercial offer letter and permit and submit the same before the OP1 for registration of the subject vehicle but we find that it has not been done by the complainant. be that as it may, OP1 also received the loan amount in favour of the complainant in its own account we find that OP1 slept over the matter and did not inform the complainant about the deposit of such loan in its account by OPs 2 and 3. We find that OP1 being the dealer of the car was responsible for delivery of the car. But we think that the complainant could not bring the required documents from the appropriate transport authority for which the car could not be processed for the commercial purpose. Be that as it may, OP1 cannot withhold the deposited amount of the complainant when OP1 failed to give delivery of the car to the complainant for non-registration of the car or for non availability of commercial offer letter, permit etc. OP1 should have explained the whole intricacies and paraphernalia for delivery of a car for commercial purpose to the complainant. OP1 we think is deficient in service on this score. We find that the car was not physically delivered to the complainant. So, the complainant is not responsible for payment of EMI. It has, however, been given out by OPs 2 and 3 that the computer is programmed regarding payment of EMI or from which date the borrower is making default or whether borrower has at all paid any EMI etc. and notice is issued intimating the default to the complainant. In this particular case as the complainant was detected to be a defaulter by the computer programme OPs 2 and 3 issued notice to the complainant for being a defaulter in payment of EMI. It is also stated that OPs2 and 3 never claimed any arrear amount of instalment with interest after cancellation of the loan. OPs 2 and 3 has stated in their written version only intimation notice was issued as it was system generated. We think that it is not within the responsibility of oPs2 and 3 to deliver the car in question as these OPs had nothing to do dealt with selling and delivery of car. We find that OP2 also cancelled the said loan and did not claim any further amount from the complainant. We think that OP1 is to return back the amount taken from the complainant as advanced payment as against the delivery of car. OP1 has also failed and neglected to explain intricacies of commercial offer letter, permit etc. to the complainant. Mere publication in the form of brochure is not sufficient that OP1 is not responsible for offer letter, permit, registration etc.
In result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP1 and dismissed against the OPs 2 and 3.
OP1 is directed to refund amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(excluding service charges) to the complainant with interest at the rate of10 percent p.a. w.e.f. 30-04-2015 till compliance within one month from the date of this order apart from litigation cot of Rs.10,000/-.
OP1 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant within the said stipulated period.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act and in that case OP shall be liable to pay penal damage at the rate ofRs.5,000/- to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.
We make no order as against OPs 2 and 3.
