Date of Filing:16.07.2007<br /> Date of Order: 10.03.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1479 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> 1. Smt. K.S. Sarvamangala,<br /> W/o K. Manjunath.<br /> <br /> 2. K. Manjunatha,<br /> <br /> Both R/at No. 562/a,<br /> Behind Post Office,<br /> S.B.M. Colony, Banshankari,<br /> III Stage, Bangalore-560 050. Complainants<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Syndicate Bank,<br /> V.V. Puram Branch,<br /> Represented by Chief Manager. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming Rs. 10,11,312/- with interest and costs.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant agreed to purchase tempo traveler bearing No. KA-05 C-9882 in a public auction for valuable consideration of Rs.2,52,000/- and out of said consideration amount the complainants paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- in the name of K. Manjunatha who is none other than the husband of the complainant as advance amount on 20/3/2006 to the opposite party A/c No. 1/0/00 and subsequently on 22/3/2006 the complainant has paid Rs.52,000/- in the name of Raju bearing A/c No.70/2000-01 (722/1231) and on 24/3/2006 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- in the name of Raju 722/1231, in all the complainants have paid Rs.2,52,000/- towards the purchase of said tempo traveler to the opposite party and on 27/3/2006 the complainants paid Rs.8,080/- as insurance amount for the period from 28/3/2006 to 27/3/2007, on 30/3/2006 Rs. 5090/- as road tax to the RTO, Jayanagar in respect of said tempo traveler. The complainants have also paid penalty amount of Rs.30,492/- to the RTO, Jayanagar on 11/5/2006. It is further submitted that, on 12/5/2006 the complainants approached the RTO office for transferring the documents in favour of 1st complainant from Raju, but the RTO officials refused to transfer the document in her favour since there is a case pending in OS No.8168/2005 on the file of Addl., City Civil Judge, at Bangalore CCH-23. The complainant had suffered loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of the money, the complainant being a lady the opposite party made to visit the office several times even till today suffering the medical treatment of the mental agony due to torcher caused by the opposite party. Due to the above said sale transactions with the opposite party the husband of the complainant had resigned job by profession who is a driver in reputed company, and joined the private company on daily wages. It is further submitted that the complainant not able to use the tempo traveler since more than 18 months even though the complainant has paid entire sale consideration amount to the opposite party and has incurred heavy loss, physical pain and suffering, mental shock and agony caused by the opposite party. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defense version stating that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or facts. There is no customer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party bank. The alleged transaction is held between the opposite party and Sri. K. Manjunath who purchased the vehicle in question under the Auction Sale conducted by the Bank. It is submitted that, the complainant on 12/5/2006 approached the RTO for transferring the document in her favour are denied. One Mr. Raju had availed loan of Rs. 3,80,000/- on 07/12/2001 for the purpose of purchase of Bajaj Tempo Traveler. The vehicle was purchased out of the loan proceeds from M/s. Khaviraj Motors, Bangalore. The vehicle was registered with Registration No.KA-05 C-9882 and it is hypothecated in favour of the opposite party Bank and it is noted in the RC Book. The said Raju has committed default in repayment of loan installment. Therefore, the opposite party Bank exercising their right under the hypothecation agreement and seized the vehicle and taken possession of the same to their custody. Against the seizure M. Raju filed a suit in OS No.8168/2005 and it is pending. There was no interim order in the aforesaid suit. One K. Manjunath S/o P. Krishnappa being the successful bidder purchased the vehicle in question, for a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- and he paid the said amount to the opposite party Bank on 24/3/2006. The purchaser submitted the Form No.29 and 30 for issue of RC in the name of the Auction Purchaser. The RTO refused to complete the formalities. Being aggrieved by the said order the opposite party Bank filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore in Appeal No. RAN/11/2006-07 and it is dismissed on 8/12/2006 as it is not maintainable. The borrower has filed the above civil suit about the sale conducted by the Bank wherein he has not made the purchaser as a party. It is pertinent to note that there is no interim order of any nature passed by the Hon’ble Civil Court. Mere pendency of a civil suit is not at all a valid ground for the RTO to refuse to complete the formalities. The RTO ought to have completed the formalities of transferring the ownership in the name of the auction purchaser or the applicant based on production of Forms 29 and 30 duly supported by the Bank endorsement. However, in order to help the purchaser, the opposite party Bank volunteered and filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner for Transport against the order of R.T.O. Complainant has approached this Forum which is not a proper way and it is not maintainable and the opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service. In view of all these reasons stated above, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was a deficiency in service on the <br /> part of the opposite party? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of money with compensation? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. The opposite party No.1 and 2 are wife and husband. It is an admitted case that the opposite party Bank by exercising right under hypothecation agreement sold the vehicle No.KA-05-C-9882 in public auction. In the said public auction the complainants participated and being successful bidder purchased the vehicle in question for a sum of Rs. 2,52,000/- and the amount was paid to the Bank on 24/3/2006. This fact is clearly admitted by the opposite party. The Bank also executed Form No.29 and 30 in order to transfer the vehicle in the name of the auction purchaser. It is also admitted case of the Bank that auction purchaser submitted the form No. 29 and 30 to the RTO for getting RC, but the RTO did not accept the request of the Bank and the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the auction purchaser. The RTO by an endorsement dated 15/6/2006 stated that, registration certificate will be transferred only on production final order from the Civil Court, Bangalore. It is the case of the opposite party that the vehicle in question was purchased by M. Raju, he had availed loan from Bank and Sri. M. Raju having committed default in payment of loan, the Bank seized the vehicle and taken possession of the vehicle to the custody and the vehicle was put to public auction. Mr. M. Raju had filed a suit in O.S. No.8168/2005 before the Civil Court, Bangalore and the said suit is pending. The opposite party Bank filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner for transport against the order of RTO and the appeal also came to be dismissed as not maintainable. This appeal has been dismissed on 8/12/2006. Therefore, the Bank could not get the document transferred in the name of the auction purchaser. The vehicle still stands in the name of Mr. M. Raju in the RTO records. It is very unfortunate that the complainants having purchase the vehicle in public auction and paid huge amount to the Bank, but they did not get the documents transferred in their name. It is the duty of the Bank to see that the documents are transferred to the name of the auction purchaser when the Bank has put the vehicle into public auction and the vehicle was sold in the auction and bid of the complainant was accepted. Without the document being transferred in the name of the auction purchaser the vehicle cannot be plied on the road. The Bank was aware of filing of a suit by Mr. M. Raju in the Civil Court against the auction and seizer of the vehicle by the Bank. When the matter was pending in the Civil Court the Bank put the vehicle to public auction and the complainant had purchased the vehicle. Admittedly, the suit was filed earlier to the public auction and it is also admitted case of the Bank that there was no interim order in the suit. In spite of that RTO refused to transfer the vehicle documents in favour of the auction purchaser and unfortunately the appeal preferred by the Bank before the Joint Commissioner for transport also came to be dismissed. Therefore, after dismissal of the appeal by the Joint Commissioner, the Bank could have honourably and promptly refunded the money to the complainant with interest because the Bank was not able to get the documents transferred in the name of the auction purchaser. When the Bank had put the vehicle into public auction, it is the duty and obligation of the Bank to see that the auction purchaser can become the legal and valid owner of the vehicle. But in this case, the Bank without returning the amount promptly with interest has taken very untenable and unreasonable contention. The complainants are nothing to do with the Civil Suit filed by Mr. M. Raju. The said suit was in between M. Raju and the Bank. The defence taken by the Ban has no merit at all and it is fit to be rejected outright. When the vehicle was purchased in public auction and the opposite party Bank failed to provide RC Book and other necessary documents in the name of the purchaser, it is definitely a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In Sovenerar and Annual report released on 17th August-2007 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at page 161 a decision in R. JAGAN(Dr.) V/S MOTOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS, it has been held as under:-<br /> <br /> Car purchased in auction-Respondents failed to provide R.C. book T.O form. Complaint for deficiency in service-Complaint allowed awarding 50,000/- compensation-State Commission reduced damages to Rs.20,000/- Hence Revision by Complainant. <br /> <br /> FACTS:- Complainant purchased a car in auction from respondents who failed to provide the complainant with RC book and OT from despite various requests. District Forum awarded Rs.50,000/- as damages. Respondent appeal was partly allowed and the damages were reduced to Rs. 20,000/- Revision for enhancement of damages. <br /> <br /> HELD:- This is a fit case for at least paying the Compensation of more than Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and there was no justifiable reason for State Commission to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the district forum. <br /> <br /> Result:- Revision Petition allowed. [Vol.III Page-14]<br /> <br /> The facts of the case are almost admitted. When the Bank has failed to provide all the legal documents of the vehicle to the auction purchaser it becomes the duty and responsibility of the Bank to pay back the entire amount to the complainant with interest, but unfortunately in this case, the Bank has failed in this duty in refunding the amount. Therefore, the complainant was forced to file the complaint before this Forum. The Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent social legislation intended to protect the interest of the consumers from exploitation. The protection of the consumes is the need of the society. It is apt to quote observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority case reported in 1994(1) SCC 243 wherein their lordship have observed as under:-<br /> “........... Various legislations and regulations permitting the State to intervene and protect interest of the consumers have become a haven for unscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does not move or it moves ineffectively, inefficiently. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, ‘a network of rackets’ or a society in which, ‘producers have secured power ‘to ‘rob the rest’ and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting against it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be as silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot”. <br /> <br /> The complainants have paid Rs.2,52,000/- as sale consideration amount on 24/3/2006 to the Bank. Rs. 8,080/- was paid towards insurance amount and Rs. 5,090/- paid towards road tax and Rs. 30,492/- towards penalty to the RTO, in all the complainant has paid Rs.2, 95,662/-. In spite of paying this huge amount the complainants were not able to ply the vehicle on the road, their huge investment was put to loss. The hope of the complainant that they may get profit out of the vehicle as scattered. Naturally, the complainants are entitled for refund of the entire amount paid by them with interest. The complainants have prayed for grant of compensation for loss on account of the vehicle being get idle without any profit. Nearly two years time is spent from the date of purchase of the vehicle in public auction. Though the complainants have stated in the complainant that they could have earned Rs. 2,000/- per day from the vehicle, but this income appears to be exaggerated one. The complainants have prayed for the grant of Rs.6,19,650/- as compensation towards the loss of income for 18 months, I feel this is exaggerated amount. The complainants could have earn at least Rs.10,000/- net income per month from the vehicle in question. Therefore, they have put into loss of nearly 2,00,000/- during these two years. Therefore, the opposite party Banks should be directed to pay at least Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of income, mental agony, tension, discomfort caused to the complainant. The complainants are also entitled for refund of Rs.2,95,662/- from the Bank with interest. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party Syndicate Bank is directed to pay Rs.2,95,662/- to the complainants. The complainants are entitled to interest at 12% p.a on the said amount from 24/3/2006 till realization. The opposite party Bank is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants. The opposite party Bank is directed to pay the entire amount to the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order. If the Bank fails to pay the amount within 30 days in that case, even the compensation amount awarded in this case carries interest at 12% p.a from the date of this order till realization. <br /> 7. The complainants are entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of this proceeding from the opposite party Bank.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br />