IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH , PRESIDENT
TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MEMBER
F.A.No.236/2018
(Against the order passed in C.C.No.129/2017, dated 16.04.2018 on the file of the District Commission, Coimbatore)
TUESDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2021.
Mr.S. Prabhu,
S/o, D. Stephenson,
No.1, Amman Nagar,
Thondamuthur Road,
Vadavalli (PO) – 641 041.
Coimbatore – District. Appellant/Complainant
Vs
M/s. TATA Motor Finance Ltd.,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
No.8, West Venkataswamy Road, R.S. Puram,
Coimbatore – 641 002. Respondent/Opposite Party
For the Appellant/Complainant : Appellant appeared party-in-person.
Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite party: M/s. Arunachalam, Advocate.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 17.08.2021 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following
ORDER
HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.
1. Not being satisfied with the order passed by the Learned District Commission, Coimbatore made in C.C.No.129/2017, dated 16.04.2018, this appeal has been filed by the complainant under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for enhancement of compensation and other reliefs.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows; - The complainant purchased a new Tata Nano LX Car on 31.08.2012 from the dealer who arranged financial assistance of Rs.2,80,000/- from the opposite party, Tata Motors Finance Limited. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.5,350/- as EMI for 60 months vide ECS, UCO Bank, Peelamedu Branch and accordingly the complainant was repaying the loan amount regularly. But, all of sudden, the opposite party started to collect the EMI by appointing one Mr. Vignesh as their collecting personnel who used to collect the EMIs and issued illegible receipts. The complainant was regular in payment of EMI amount for 4 years. While so, on 16.09.2016, one Mr. Prabhu working in the opposite party’s concern, asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loan amount irrespective of the fact that the complainant was regularly paying all the EMIs money to the collecting agent of the opposite party. Moreover, in the meantime, on April 2016, when the complainant was making an attempt to sell his laptop computer worth Rs.87,000/- in order to pay the EMI, the said Vignesh who is the collecting agent of the opposite party came and volunteered to sell the computer for a good price and pay the sale proceeds towards EMI. Believing his words, the complainant has also handed over the computer to the said Vignesh. But the said Vignesh did not pay any amount towards EMIs as stated by him. Later, the complainant came to know that the said Vignesh left the job. Thus, according to the complainant, he has been regularly paying the EMI amount. While so, on 16.09.2016, the car was forcibly taken by the said Prabhu. In fact, on the particular date, the complainant was proceeding in the car to pledge his gold chain in order to pay the EMI dues to the opposite party. At the time of taking possession of the car, the jewel was kept inside the car. Apart from that, the complainant’s professional tools, Pioneer Audio System and his Transfer Certificate were also inside the car. Before taking possession of the car, the opposite party had not issued any notice to the complainant. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission for the following reliefs against the opposite party.
a) To return the subject car, complainant’s 48 gram weighing gold chain, professional tools, Pioneer Audio System, and Transfer Certificate of their value of Rs.3,87,000/-.
b) To pay Rs.87,000/- towards Toshiba Laptop Computer which was taken away from the complainant in April 2016 by the opposite party.
c) To pay Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for humiliation, physical and mental agony and also loss of earning to the complainant and others affected by the illegal repossession.
d) To pay Rs.5000/- towards cost. In all, a total sum of Rs.19,79,000/- and other such relief.
4. Before the District Commission, though the opposite party appeared through their counsel they did not file written version on their behalf and hence, the opposite party was set ex-parte before the District Commission. On the side of the complainant, proof affidavit was filed and Exhibits A1 to A24 were marked before the District Commission.
5. After analyzing the submissions made by the complainant and perusal of the records, the District Commission allowed the complaint in part holding that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service and directed the opposite party (a) either to return the car to the complainant on clearing his loan or return the value of the car minus the balance amount due to be paid by the complainant as on the date of illegal possession by the opposite party i.e., 16.09.2016, (b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization and also (c) to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as costs of the proceedings.
6) Having not been satisfied with the relief granted by the District Commission, the complainant has preferred this appeal stating that the District Commission without considering the evidences properly disallowed the major portion of the claim made by the complainant and thus allowed the complaint only in part. Hence, he filed the present appeal to modify the order of the District Commission by granting total relief as prayed for in the complaint by allowing this appeal.
7. The points for consideration are
1) Whether the appeal has to be allowed by modifying the order of the District Commission?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the complaint?
8. Point:- On perusal of the evidences available on records, we find that the complainant having not been satisfied with the relief granted by the learned District Commission, filed this appeal to modify the order of the District Commission and grant total relief as claimed in the complaint by allowing this appeal. In the complaint averments, the complainant has averred that “at the time of taking possession of the car there was a gold chain weighing 48 grams inside the car and also professional tools, Pioneer Audio System and the Transfer Certificate of the complainant were inside the car. Apart from that, it is also the case of the complainant that a laptop computer worth Rs.87,000/-, was taken by the agent of the opposite party on assurance that the said agent would sell it and the sale proceeds would be paid towards the EMI account, but the said agent did not do so. Therefore, the appeal has to be allowed and the entire relief as prayed for in the complaint has to be granted to the complainant by allowing the complaint in toto. Per contra, the respondent/opposite party submits that the car was purchased by the complainant on hire purchase agreement and therefore the opposite party is the owner of the car and since the appellant was in default in payment of EMIs, the possession of the car was taken in the custody of the opposite party.
9. Before the District Commission, no written version was filed by the opposite party. However, now the opposite party has appeared before this Commission and submitted that they are ready and willing to comply with the order of the District Commission. Now, the car was already sold. The respondent/opposite party has not filed any appeal as against the ex-parte order passed by the District Commission. Now they are prepared to return the value of the car minus the balance amount to be paid by the complainant as directed by the District Commission and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and Rs.2000/- towards the cost. Thus he prays for confirmation of the order passed by the District Commission and opposed grant of any other relief other than one granted by the District Commission.
10. We are of the considered opinion that the complainant has submitted that his car was taken forcefully by the opposite party along with 48 grams of gold chain, professional tools, Pioneer Audio System and his Transfer Certificate which were all inside the car. There is no proof for the same. If really the car was taken with above valuables inside the car, the complainant would have lodged a police complaint but here no such complaint was given. Similarly, except the bald statement of that his laptop computer was taken by the collection agent of the opposite party/respondent, no proof was evidenced for taking away the laptop computer worth Rs.87,000/- by the collection agent of the opposite party. Having considered all the above facts, we are of the considered opinion, that the learned District Commission after carefully analyzing the evidences has come to a proper and correct conclusion and allowed by the complaint in part by granting appropriate reliefs to the complainant in which we do not find any error and infirmity. Consequently, we come to a decision that the complainant is not entitled for any enhancement of relief and appeal is liable to be dismissed. The points are answered accordingly.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission, Coimbatore made in C.C.No.129/2017, dated 16.04.2018. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, R. SUBBIAH,
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
Index: Yes/No
TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/August/2021
