Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/1/2014

D.Anil Kumar S/o. Dhanapal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Sri Bhargavi Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

A.Sudarsana Babu

04 Mar 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:31.12.2013

Order Date: 04.03.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

WEDNESDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

C.C.No.01/2014

 

Between

 

D.Anil Kumar,

S/o. Dhanapal,

D.No.14-535, Krishna Reddy Nagar,

Thimminaidupalem Panchayat,

Tirupati Urban Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         M/s. Sri Bhargavi Automobiles,

            Rep. by its Authorised person,

            Plot No.103/A, Wood Complex,

            Vadayapalem,

            Nellore.

 

2.         M/s. Sri. Bhargavi Automobiles,

            Rep. by its Authorised person,

            11-56/1, Renigunta Road,

            Tirupati.

           

3.         Hinduja Layland Finance Ltd.,

            Rep. by its authorized person,

13-6-600/44/172, P.K.Layout,

Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 23.02.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.A.Sudarsana Babu, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.K.V.Ramana Reddy, counsel for the opposite party No.1, and opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 remained exparte, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Sections-12(1) of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs against opposite parties 1 to 3 i.e. 1) to direct the opposite parties to handover the vehicle in good running condition along with correct Certificate of Registration by duly paying up to date dues 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and for mental agony 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,08,000/- for the loss of earnings @ Rs.18,000/- per month (for 6 months) from July 2013 to December 2013 i.e. as on the date of complaint and 4) to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the litigation.   

            2.  The brief averments in the complaint are:- That the complainant purchased goods vehicle DOSTD LS BSIII (CHLB FBC PS) on 31.05.2013 from opposite party No.2 by availing loan from opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2 has received the entire sale consideration from opposite party No.3 on 13.06.2013 and handed-over the vehicle to complainant under temporary registration No.AP26UETR3979. In the registration form, it was mentioned at the relevant column that the vehicle is to be registered at RTA, Chittoor AP003 and also in the complaint at address column it was mentioned as Chittoor Urban Mandal. The complainant being illiterate simply took the vehicle with temporary registration on 13.06.2013. On that day the opposite party No.3 demanded the complainant to pay the loan installment of Rs.15,000/-. On 13.06.2013 the complainant started to use the vehicle but the traffic police in their regular check-up stopped the vehicle and said the temporary certificate of registration is not valid as it is to be registered at RTA Chittoor. Later the vehicle was released with a condition not to ply the vehicle. When the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and explained what was happened, opposite party No.2 sought time to rectify the mistake and asked the complainant to keep the vehicle with opposite party No.2. Accordingly, complainant kept the vehicle with opposite party No.2 to get correct certificate of registration. Inspite of repeated requests, opposite parties 1 and 2 not acted upon. In the meanwhile, opposite party No.3 demanded to pay the installment of Rs.15,000/- on which complainant paid only Rs.10,000/- as he has no money, as he could not run the vehicle to eek out his livelihood.

Since there is no response from opposite parties 1 and 2, complainant got issued legal notice on 25.09.2013, for which opposite party No.1 gave reply on 11.11.2013 with false allegations. Opposite party No.2 failed to give reply though received said notice. Complainant came to know that the vehicle, which was kept with opposite party No.2 was taken away by opposite party No.3 without the knowledge of the complainant. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have colluded, caused loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.1 filed his written objections contending that the complainant purchased the vehicle as mentioned by the complainant and vehicle was delivered on production of delivery order issued by opposite party No.3. At the time of delivery complainant paid only Rs.42,384/- out of total cost of Rs.4,63,848/-. Opposite party No.3 undertook to pay the balance amount on 13.06.2013. On the basis of temporary registration, the complainant can ply the vehicle for hire. During the last week of June 2013, complainant approached opposite party No.1 and stated that he has produced all papers before RTA Tirupati, his address is mentioned as Chittoor Urban Mandal instead of Tirupati Urban Mandal. Opposite party No.1 approached RTA Tirupati, RTA Chittoor and Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad and got rectified the mistake on 04.09.2013 and intimated the same to complainant immediately.

The delay was due to Samaikyandhra agitations and bandhs in Seemandhra region, which was started from 31.07.2013. There is no negligence or latches on the part of opposite party No.1. Complainant kept the vehicle in the service station (which was under construction) of opposite party No.1 on 08.08.2013. Opposite party No.3 seized the complainant’s vehicle in the presence of complainant on 27.09.2013 and took away the vehicle as complainant committed default in payment of loan installments right from the beginning. The other customers, who purchased the vehicles, were plying their respective vehicles with temporary registration till recent times. By the date of selling the vehicle to complainant, opposite party No.2 is not there as such opposite party No.2 is no way concern in this transaction. Transaction took place at Nellore. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prays the Forum to dismiss the complainant against opposite party No.1 with costs.

4.  Opposite party No.3 filed written objections denying parawise allegations except purchasing the vehicle and sanctioning the loan in favour of the complainant and further contended that as per hire purchase agreement entered into by complainant with opposite party No.3, it was given cheque to the complainant for purchasing the vehicle. Accordingly, the complainant has purchased the vehicle. Opposite party No.3 got every right to seize the vehicle if complainant committed default in payment of loan installments. Opposite party No.3 requested several times for regularization of loan but the complainant failed to pay the loan installments. Opposite party No.3 is not responsible for the mistakes of opposite parties 1 and 2. Complainant paid only Rs.10,000/- and obtained receipt from opposite party No.3. Complainant sent notice only to opposite parties 1 and 2. No such notice was given to opposite party No.3. With great difficulty opposite part No.3 found the vehicle and seized it on 27.09.2013 in the presence of complainant and opposite party No.2. Even after seizing the vehicle, inspite of several opportunities, complainant instead of making payment, filed this complaint. At the time of seizure of the vehicle, complainant agreed to return the sale certificate, tax receipt and temporary registration certificate but not returned them so far. Without option opposite party No.3 got the vehicle registered. Even today opposite party No.3 is ready to handover the vehicle but the complainant has not shown interest and throwing mud on opposite party No.3. As per the hire purchase agreement, opposite party No.3 got every right to sell the vehicle and got right to proceed against the complainant for the balance amount and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against opposite party No.3 with costs.

            5.  Complainant filed his chief affidavit, written arguments and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Opposite party No.1 filed his chief affidavit, written arguments and reported no documents on his behalf. Opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 remained exparte.

            6.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i). Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3?

            (ii). Whether opposite party No.3 is entitled to seize the vehicle without any

                   prior notice to complainant?

            (iii). Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iv)  To what relief?

            7.  Point No.(i):-  In order to answer this point, the burden lies on the complainant to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3. The opposite parties also admitting that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from opposite parties on the loan sanctioned by opposite party No.3 and taken the delivery of possession of the vehicle on 13.06.2013. Primary allegation that was made against the opposite parties is that they have mentioned in the temporary certificate of registration that the vehicle is to be registered at RTA, Chittoor, because of that clause only, the complainant could not run his vehicle, as the traffic police caught the vehicle, instructed the complainant not to ply the vehicle as the temporary registration is not valid to ply the vehicle in Tirupati, as it was mentioned in the certificate of registration that it is to be registered at RTA, Chittoor. Another allegation that was made by the complainant is that though he has given his correct address, mentioning his temporary and permanent address as Tirupati Urban, it was wrongly mentioned in the certificate of registration as Chittoor Urban, that is why he could not ply the vehicle due to the mistake committed by opposite parties 1 and  2. He sustained loss as he could not ply the vehicle and eek out his livelihood. As could be seen from Ex.A1 Form-21 (Rule 47(a) & D) Sale Certificate, the permanent address of complainant was mentioned as Krishnareddy Nagar, Thimminaidu Palem, Tirupati, Chittoor Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. In Ex.A1 temporary address also mentioned as above. In Ex.A3 Temporary Certificate of Registration, address of the complainant is mentioned as Tirupati, 14-535, Krishnareddy Nagar, Thimminaidu Palem, Chittoor Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. So, in both the certificates, the address of complainant is mentioned as Chittoor Urban, nowhere it is mentioned as Tirupati Urban. In Ex.A7 Retail Invoice dt:31.05.2013 address of complainant is mentioned as “D.Anil Kumar, D.No.14-535, Krishna Reddy Nagar, T.N.Palem G.P. Tirupati, Tirupati H.O”. When the address of complainant is mentioned as above in the invoice, the certificate of registration should contain the same address but unfortunately it was mentioned differently as Chittoor Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. Therefore, the mistake was committed by opposite parties 1 and 2. However, opposite party No.1 in his written version specifically mentioned that he got the mistake rectified by approaching RTA Tirupati, RTA Chittoor and Transport Commissioner at Hyderabad. Finally rectification was done by 04.09.2013 i.e. after 3 months of purchase. According to opposite party No.1 the rectification was informed to complainant but he did not show interest to take back the vehicle. On 27.09.2013 opposite party No.3 has seized the vehicle while it was kept with opposite party No.2. According to the opposite parties, the vehicle was seized in the presence of complainant and opposite party No.2 on the ground that the complainant failed to pay the loan installments right from the beginning except a sum of Rs.10,000/-. No doubt, that the opposite party No.3 got every right to seize the vehicle if the complainant committed willful default in payment of loan installments but opposite party No.3 is expected to give notice to complainant explaining the reasons as to why he is going to seize the vehicle and giving an opportunity to the complainant to pay the loan installments within a particular date but no such steps were taken by opposite party No.3 before seizing the vehicle. The delay that was occurred in getting the rectification of certificate of registration due to Samaikyandhra agitations, such delay can be accepted as it was supported by a valid reason but to prove the mistake that was crept in certificate of registration was rectified. Opposite parties 1 or 2 or 3 have not filed the rectified certificate of registration in the Forum or supplied the same to complainant till today. On the other hand, opposite parties 2 and 3 remained exparte. Opposite party No.2 remained exparte even without filing his written version, whereas opposite party No.3 remained exparte after filing his written version. Though opposite parties 1 and 3 in their respective written versions contended that they got rectified the mistake in certificate of registration, no such rectified certificate of registration was filed in the Forum by either of the opposite parties or served the same on complainant. Therefore, it can be safely held that there is mistake or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            8.  Point No.(ii):-  Though opposite party No.3, the finance company got every right to seize the vehicle if any default is committed by the complainant in payment of loan installments, before seizing the vehicle opposite party No.3 is expected to issue notice to the complainant informing him that a particular amount is due from the complainant and giving time informing that as on particular date he has to pay the entire installments due else the vehicle will be seized but no such notice was issued to the complainant at any point of time. No pleading is there in the written version of opposite parties 1 and 3 to the effect that opposite party No.3 gave any such notice prior to seizer. Even after seizing the vehicle, no notice was given to the complainant. This can be said that there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.3. For the reasons best known none of the opposite parties filed the hire purchase agreement in the Forum, so as to enable this Forum to go through terms and conditions under which the vehicle can be seized by opposite party No.3. Thus we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.3. Accordingly this point is answered.

            9.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our holding on points 1 and 2  coupled with deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.3, the complainant was deprived of his right to run the vehicle and eek out his livelihood, as such he suffered a lot for his livelihood and he is unable to pay the loan installments ever since the vehicle was kept with opposite party No.2 from 13.06.2013 onwards. Because of the mistake in mentioning the place of registering authority in sale certificate by the opposite parties 1 and 2, the complainant could not run the vehicle and eek out his livelihood for which the complainant purchased the vehicle from opposite parties 1 and 2. Though opposite party No.1 mentioned in his written version, chief affidavit as well as in the written arguments that he got the mistake rectified by 04.09.2013, no such rectified certificate of registration was filed in the Forum so far to prove his bona fides, that apart though the opposite party No.3 has every right to seize the vehicle if the purchaser committed default in payment of loan installments, he has to give prior notice to complainant. No such notice is issued even according to the pleadings of opposite party No.3. Generally, whenever any seizure is effected with regard to the vehicle or any goods etc. necessarily seizure-nama should be prepared in the presence of elders and obtain signatures of the persons present at the time of seizure including the complainant if he is present there. According to the written versions of opposite parties 1 and 3, the vehicle was seized on 27.09.2013 from opposite party No.2 in the presence of complainant but no proof is filed to show that the vehicle was seized in the presence of complainant i.e. to say the complainant is very much present at the time of seizure of the vehicle. Therefore, there are latches on the part of opposite party No.3 in seizing the vehicle. Opposite party No.3, though a financier not supposed to seize the vehicle, whenever or wherever he found the vehicle without prior intimation to the owner of the vehicle on the ground that the owner of the vehicle or borrower committed default in payment of installments. So, under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for from opposite parties 1 to 3. Since the deficiency in service was established on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3, opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay loan installments due from the date of sanctioning the loan to complainant on 13.06.2013 till today and release the vehicle from the possession of opposite party No.3 and deliver the vehicle with same chassis number and engine number and in good working condition to the complainant. On such payment of installments due, by the opposite parties 1 and 2, opposite party No.3 is directed to release the vehicle from its custody and to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony by seizing the vehicle without prior notice and opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant at Rs.1,000/- each to the complainant towards litigation expenses. Accordingly the complaint is to be allowed in part.

            10. Point No.(iv):-  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the installments due till today at Rs.15,000/- per month to opposite party No.3 and get the vehicle released from the possession of opposite party No.3 and handover the same to the complainant. Opposite party No.3 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant by seizing the vehicle without prior notice and also opposite parties 1 to 3 further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the litigation at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each to the complainant. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are hereby directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- will carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.                 

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 4^th day of March, 2015.   

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                 

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

 

PW-1:  D.Anil Kumar S/o. Dhanapal (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Sale certificate in the name of the complainant issued by the Opposite Party No.1.Dt: 31.05.2013.
2.	Tax receipt issued by the Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 31.05.2013.
3.	Temporary certificate of registration. Dt: 04.06.2013.
4.	Office copy of the legal notice caused to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Dt: 25.09.2013.
5.	Reply caused by the Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 11.11.2013.

 

 

6.	Acknowledgement card duly signed by Opposite Party No.2. Dt: 28.09.2013.
7.	A True copy of Retail Invoice of 31.05.2013 issued by the Opposite Party.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

-NIL-

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-          

                                                                                                                President

 

                                                              // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite parties.