-Vs-                        

1. M/s. Radhakrishna Toyota, Radhakrishna Automobile Private Ltd.,

   D.No.7-2-A5, Main Road,

   Sanath Nagar,

   Hyderabad-500 018.

2. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited,

   Alankar Plaza, Park Road, H.No.40/323,  Kurnool-518 001.                                    

…Opposite PartieS

      This complaint is coming  on  this  day for orders in the presence  of  Sri. S.Sivaramakrishna Prasad,  Advocate, for complainant , and   Sri M. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri. A.Siva Ramaiah , and Sri. C. Raghava Reddy , Advocates for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramiah, President)

C.C. No.129/09      

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the Ops

a)     to pay the amount of Rs.17,754/-  with interest @ 24% p.a  from March , 2009 and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony caused by OP.No.1 and 2 to the complainant.

b)     to pay costs of the complaint and   

c)     and to grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Forum may deems fit and proper  in the circumstances of the case.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant  approached  OP.No.1 in the month of December , 2008  for purchasing  a Toyota Innova G-4 Model under the scheme  of “year ending clearance sale’’.  OP.No.1 issued a quotation to the complainant . The complainant approached OP.No.2 for financial aid. OP.No.2 entered into auto loan agreement . Accordingly under the said agreement OP.No.2  sanctioned a loan of  Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant .  As per the terms of the agreement the complainant has to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- which is a margin money. The complainant issued 30 post dated cheques to OP.No.2 in order to repay the loan amount to be sanctioned by OP.No.2. As OP.No.1 expressed inability to deliver the vehicle on or before 31-12-2008 the complainant orally cancelled the order placed by him to OP.No.1 . At the same time the complainant also informed  to OP.No.2  by 30-12-2008 by cancelling the loan agreement. OP.No.2 also orally accepted the same  to the surprise of the complainant , OP.No.2

delivered the demand draft infavour of OP.No.1 for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- . OP.No.1 credited  the demand draft and kept quite for a long period. Knowing fully well that no vehicle was delivered to the  complainant , OP.No.2 negligently sent a demand draft for Rs.6,00,000/- to OP.No.1. Crediting the loan amount to the OP.No.1 without receiving margin money from the complainant is gross deficiency of service on the part of OP.No.2 . Keeping amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by OP.No.1 is nothing but  unfair  trade practice.  OP.No.2 presented two cheques each for a sum of Rs. 21,740/- in  order  to realize   the  loan  amount . OP. NO.2     got  issued a  letter  dated

  11-04-2009 demanding complainant to honour the cheques . By 11-04-2009 , OP.No.2 call back the amount from OP.No.1 and the loan account was closed. On the demand made by the complainant  OP.No.2 issued a  cheque infavour of the  complainant for a sum of Rs.25,726.92 ps. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.43,480/- whereas OP.No.2 refund a sum of Rs.25,726-92 ps  . OP.No.2 deducted a sum of  Rs.17,754/-  . The Ops  did not give any reply for the notice got issued by the complainant . Hence the complaint

3.     OP.No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of party and the complaint is not maintainable . There is no relationship between  the complainant and OP.No.1. The complainant might have obtained quotation from OP.No.1  relating to  Toyota Innova G-4 Model .The said quotation is subject to the condition mentioned there in. OP.No.1 is not aware that the complainant approached to OP.No.2 for a loan. After receiving full amount only the vehicle will be delivered to the customer. In this case the complainant not approached OP.No.1 at any time and no vehicle was delivered to him . The complainant is not the customer of OP.No.1 issuance of the quotation  does not mean  booking of the vehicle . No amount  was  received from OP.No.2 by 31-12-2008 . On verification of the account an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was received from OP.No.2 without any letter from OP.No.2 . OP.No.1 made a correspondence with OP.No.2 and directed  OP.No.2 to take back the amount. OP.No.2 informed that the amount was mistakenly sent to OP.No.1 and requested to send back the amount. On 07-03-2009 itself the amount was retuned back to OP.No.2. There is  no deficiency of service on the part of  OP.No.1 . The complaint is dismissed against OP.No.1.  

4.     OP.No.2 filed separate written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable  in law.  OP.No.2 denied various allegations  mentioned in the complaint.  The complainant approached OP.No.2 for  loan for the  purchase of vehicle. Accordingly OP.No.2 sanctioned an amount of Rs.6,50,000/-  on 31-12-2008  . The complainant agreed  to pay the said  amount with interest  in 36 equal  monthly installments  at the rate of Rs.21,740/-  per month and issued  36 post dated cheques . The loan amount was delivered  on 31-12-2008 as per the directions  of the complainant , to OP.No.1 by way of D.D . Later as per the terms and conditions  of  the loan agreement  OP.No 2 presented  two cheques each for sum of Rs.21,740/- and the cheques were cleared . OP.No.1 returned  the amount to OP.No.2  in the month of March 2009. There after  on the request  of the complainant  the loan was cleared  and a cheque for Rs.25,726-92 ps was issued to the complainant after deducting  an amount of Rs.17,754/-  towards loan processing  fees  , courier charges etc., . The complainant never informed  OP.No.2  on  30-12-2008  about the cancellation of the order placed by him with OP.No.1 . There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.2 and OP.No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation  to the complainant . The complaint is liable to be dismissed.        

5.     On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A7 are marked .The complainant filed  his Sworn affidavit . On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 is marked and the Sworn affidavits of  OP 1and  2 are filed. 

6.     On the basis of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are

(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties  1 and 2 ?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed

for?

(iii) To what relief?

7.     Point No. 1 & 2 :  Admittedly  OP.No.1 is a dealer  in Toyota Innova G-4 Model OP.No.1 announced  an offer in the month of  December, 2008 to sell  Toyota Innova G-4 Model  at  a discount  price. It is admitted  that the complainant  wanted to purchase the Toyota Innova G-4 Model    under the discount  scheme  and approached OP.No.2 for a loan . It is also admitted  that OP.No.2 sanctioned loan  to the complainant  for the purchase  of the vehicle and that the complainant issued 30 post dated cheques . It is the case  of the OP.No.1 that the complainant  never  approached  it for the purchase of the Toyota Innova G-4 Model in December, 2008. The complainant  did not place any documentary evidence to show that he placed an order for the purchase  of the  vehicle from OP.No.1 under the discount scheme in the month of December 2008  . It is argued  by the leaned counsel appearing  for OP.No.1 that merely because OP.No.1  issued a quotation to the complainant , it cannot be said that the complainant place order for the purchase of Toyota Innova G-4 Model from OP.No.1. In the absence of any documentary evidence it cannot be said  that the complainant  placed an order with OP.No.1 for the purchase of Toyota Innova G-4 Model in the month of December, 2008 . There is no relationship  what so ever in between the complainant and OP.No.1 . Therefore  OP.No.1 cannot be held liable to pay  compensation to the complainant. The complainant against OP.No.1 is not maintainable .

8.     It is the case of OP.No.2 that an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-  was sent to OP.No.1 as per the  terms of the loan agreement  entered by the complainant.  OP.No.2 did not choose  to file the loan agreement. It is not  the case of the  OP.No.1 that it did not  receive  Rs.6,00,000/- from OP.No.2 . According  to OP.No.1 an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-  was received from OP.No.2  without any letter and after  knowing that it was mistakenly sent by OP.No.2 , the amount was retuned back to OP.No.2 on 07-03-2009 .  It is not the case of the OP.No.2 that a covering letter  was enclosed to the D.D. for Rs.6,00,000/- sent to OP.No.1 . It is also  admitted by OP.No.2  that the amount of Rs.6,00,000/-  was returned by OP.No.1 in the month of March , 2009.

9.     According to the complainant the cost of the vehicle to be purchased  was  Rs.9,00,000/- , that he had to deposit  Rs.3,00,000/-  as margin money and that OP.No.2 negligently sent a D.D for  Rs.6,00,000/- to OP.No.1 without  margin . Admittedly the complainant  did not  deposit the margin money with OP.No.2 . OP.No.2 having received back Rs. 6,00,000/-  from OP.No.1 in the month of March, 2009 got issued a letter on 11-04-2009 to the complainant  demanding him to honour the cheques . It is not  known as to why  OP.No.2 issued .  Ex.A2 letter dated 11-04-2009 even after receiving the entire amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from OP.No.2

10.    Admittedly the post dated cheques issued by the complainant were with OP.No.2 . Admittedly OP.No.2 presented  two cheques  of Rs.21,740/- each for encashment and they were cleared. Total amount of Rs.43,480/- was realized by OP.No.2 by presenting two cheques . Admittedly  OP.No.2 issued a cheque for Rs.25,726-92  infavour of the  complainant . It is the case of the  OP.No.2  that it incurred an amount of Rs.17,754/-towads loan processing  fees . The rate of processing fee is not stated . Admittedly the complainant approached  OP.No.2 for a loan  . OP.No.2 sanctioned loan to the complainant for the purchase  of the vehicle .  OP.No.2 must have incurred some amount towards processing fees , courier charges etc.,. Charging of Rs.17,754/- towards loan processing fees and courier charges by OP.No.2 is excessive and unreasonable. It is not known as to why OP.No.2 kept quite without placing the details  of the processing fees , courier charges etc., incurred  by it . The OP.No.2 acted negligently in sending   Rs.6,00,000/-  to OP.No.1 . Though the complainant  did not deposit  the margin money of Rs.3,00,000/- . OP.No.2 acted  hastily in sending an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-  to OP.No.1. Without consulting the complainant  , OP.No.2 negligently sent Rs.6,00,000/- to OP.No.1. Charging  of Rs.17,754/- by OP.No.2 towards loan processing fees and courier charges is quite  unfair  and OP.No.2 is liable to refund the said amount  to the complainant . There was deficiency of service on the part of OP.No.2.

11.    The complainant is also claiming an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony . OP.No.2 bank sanctioned loan to the complainant on his request . The complainant also  issued post dated cheques to OP.No.2 in order to repay the loan. Merely because OP.No.2  acted negligently  and hastily it cannot be said  that the complainant  is entitled  to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-   towards mental agony . Admittedly OP.No.2 after receiving Rs.6,00,000/-  from OP.No.1  issued a letter Ex.A2 to the complainant directing him to honour the cheque.  The act of OP.No.2  must havea caused mental agony  to the complainant . I think it is jut and proper  to direct OP.No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony .

12.    Point No:- 3.  In the result the complaint is partly allowed   directing the opposite party No. 2 to refund an amount  of Rs.17,754/- and also pay Rs.1,000/ towards mental agony and costs Rs. 500 /- with interest  @ 9% p.a from the date of  demand notice dated 22-06-2009  till the date of payment . The complainant against OP.No.1 is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10^th day of June , 2010.

           Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-      

MALE MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT  

. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil            For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Letter addressed by the OP.No.1 to OP.No.2 dated

25-05-2009. 

Ex.A2.       Letter addressed by the OP.No.2 to the complainant dated

                11-04-2009.

Ex.A3.       Letter addressed by OP.No.2 to the complainant dated 

05-05-2009. 

Ex.A4.       Bank account statement of the complainant .

Ex.A5.       Xerox copies  of cheques bearing Nos. 790711 issued by

the OP.No.2 to the  complainant.

Ex.A6.       Office copy of legal notice dated 22-06-2009.

Ex.A7.       Served postal acknowledgements two in number.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:

Ex.B1.       Attested Xerox copy of loan account     

            Sd/-                                                                      Sd/-

   MALE MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on :

Copy was dispatched    on: