Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

279/2010

G.Krishna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Bajaj Auto Finance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Vyas Prakash

20 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   06.07. 2010

                                                                        Date of Order :   20.07.2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.279/2010

MONDAY THIS 20^TH   DAY OF JULY  2015

 

Mr. Krishna G.                                         

No.4/724 (old No.4/341A),

Bharathiar Nagar, 1^st Street,

Neelangarai,

Chennai 600 041.                                            … Complainant.

 

                                         ..Vs..

 

M.s. Bajaj Auto Finance Co. Ltd.,

C/o. Bajaj Auto Limited,

2^nd Floor, No.616, Anna Salai,

Khivraj Building 2^nd and 3^rd Floor,

Chennai 600 006.                                   ..Opposite party.

 

 

For the Complainant               :  M/s. R. Akshaya

 

For the Opposite party             : Mr. S. Parthasarahy.

 

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party  to return the original registration certificate for the complaint mentioned  vehicle  and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the mental agony    with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.  

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

             The complainant has purchased a Bajaj Platina Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN-07-AM-6899 from M/s. Lakshmi Sujee Auto Private Limited, Chennai.  The said vehicle was purchased by hire purchase from the opposite party.   The terms of the hire purchase agreement with the opposite party was for 36 months.  Further the original registration certificates was directly sent to the opposite party by M/s. Lakshmi Sujee Auto (P) Limited Chennai.  The complainant had been prompt in the payment of the loan under the hire purchase agreement.  The said loan amount under hire purchase agreement had been duly paid an no amount was due to the opposite party.   In spite of the entire amount under the hire purchase agreement was paid to the opposite party, the opposite party had not chosen to return the original registration book.  The complainant issued a letter dated 28.4.2010 to the opposite party requesting him to return the original registration certificate.  In spite of receiving the said letter the opposite party had not chosen either to reply to the letter or return the original registration certificate.  The act of the opposite party in not returning the original registration certificate amounts to deficiency in service.     Hence the complaint.  

Written version of   opposite party is  as follows:-

2.     The allegations  in the  complaint are hereby denied except those that are specifically admitted and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The complainant approached the opposite party for purchase of one Bajaj motor cycle Platina.  The complainant on agreeing to the entire terms and condition of the loan executed and signed a loan agreement.  The complainant remitted all the loan EMI’s to the said loan account in time and closed the said loan account before 15.6.2010.  Cash paid receipt of Rs.1083/- dated 23.11.2009 itself proves the deficiency showing one EMI was made bounced by the complainant and due to the said bounce and non remittance of the said bounce EMI on respective month the loan account was accumulated with Rs.350/- towards bounce charges and Rs.150 towards late payment charges levied as per the agreement clause 11 of the loan agreement which is not in dispute at any point of time nor in the said complaint.  Thus as on date this complaint is in due of Rs.500/- to the said loan account.     With respect to original registration certificate of the said vehicle the opposite party states that merely relying on the photo copy of a letter presumed to be issued by M/s.Lakshmi Sujee Auto Pvt. Ltd to the complainant where Lakshmi Sujee Auto Pvt. Ltd is not party to the present complaint nor witness it cannot be concluded that the original registration certificate have being handed over to the opposite party merely further relying on seeing a rubber stamp which is also being disputed by the opposite party.  The fact is that, the opposite party is not in the custody of the original registration certificate of the said vehicle at any point of time.   Hence it is denied and disputed that the original registration certificate of the said vehicle is handed over by M/s. Lakshmi Sujee Auto Pvt Ltd., to the opposite party.   It is highly presumed that it is only for wrong full gain M/s. Lakshmi Sujee Auto Pvt. Ltd., and the complainant has colluded with each other.   The opposite party is not in the custody of the original registration certificate of the said vehicle neither from M/s. Lashmi Sujee Auto Pvt Ltd nor from the complainant.  It is further denied and disputed that the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Hence the opposite party  never committed any deficiency of service.  Therefore  the complaint has to be dismissed with cost.   

3.     Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Opposite party have filed his  proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to  Ex.B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.      POINTS 1  & 2 :

        Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opposite party,  proof affidavit filed by both side and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 filed on the side of the complainant, Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 filed on the side of the opposite party and considered the both side arguments.  There is no dispute that the complainant has availed vehicle loan from the opposite partly for the purchase of the complaint mentioned vehicle for the use of his company which is run by the complainant for his livelihood.  According to the complainant the repayment of the said loan borrowed from the opposite party was made regularly and paid the entire amount by cheque through his bank account.  Whereas the opposite party has resisted the said contention by stating that the complainant is still due to a sum of Rs.500/- as overdue charges and cheque bounces charges as per the statement of account.  The copy of the statement of account of the complainant is filed as Ex.B3.  As per the said copy of statement of Account Ex.B3 the  contention  of the opposite party that though the complainant has paid the loan amount by installments through cheque, as per entries found in  Ex.B3 statement of account for a sum of Rs.150/- as overdue charges on 31.1.2009 and Rs.350/- towards cheque bouncing charge on 16.10.2009 re-credited in the said account.  As such the said total amount of Rs.500/- is due by the complainant to the opposite party as per the statement of account Ex.B3.  Contrary to this the complainant contention that he has paid entire amount towards the loan and there is no due as on date is not acceptable.  

5.     Further the complainant case is that the complainant having paid the entire amount for the vehicle loan to the opposite party, the opposite party has to return the original R.C. book of the said vehicle which  has been received and kept by them as security for the loan advance.  Despite of the complainant claim and legal notice dated 28.4.2010 the opposite party has not returned the said R.C. Book as such the opposite party has committed deficiency of service.  Whereas the opposite party has resisted the said contention of the complainant by saying that they have not received the original R.C. book of the said vehicle from the complainant and the said R.C. book is not with the custody of the opposite party.  Therefore the opposite party could not be able to return the R.C. book to the complainant  as such there is no deficiency of service on their part.  Hence this complaint is to be dismissed.  

6.     The opposite party for  the said above contention relied upon the terms and conditions of the loan agreement to the opposite party and filed the copy of the same as Ex.B2 and there is no condition mentioned in the terms and conditions that the complainant has to furnish the original R.C. book as a security for the loan advanced to the complainant.   Whereas the complainant has produced Ex.A2 letter sent by the dealer of the vehicle i.e. M/s. Lakshmi Sujee Auto Pvt. Limited to the opposite party dated 28.11.2007 in which it has been stated that they have sent the original R.C. book mentioned in the list which includes the R.C. book of the complainant’s vehicle bearing registration No.TN07 AM 6899 mentioned in 4^th serial number in the list.  The said letter also contains the endorsement of the receipt of the said book mentioned  in the list by the staff of the Bajaj Auto Finance Limited the opposite party dated 29.11.2007.  Therefore as per Ex.A2 letter as contented by the complainant the original R.C. book of the compliant mentioned vehicle was sent by Lakshmi Sujee Auto Pvt. Limited to the opposite party and the opposite party have also received the same on 29.11.2007 is categorically proved in this proceedings.   Whereas the contention of the opposite party that as  per the said letter Ex.A2 the opposite party have not received the original R.C. book of the compliant mentioned vehicle belongs to the complainant is not acceptable.  Further the contention of the opposite party that they have not impleaded the Lakshmi Sujee Auto Pvt. Limited as a party in this proceedings and the said Ex.A2  letter mentioned contents, endorsement for receipt, seal are not proved by the complainant as genuineness is not acceptable.  Therefore the contention of the opposite party that they have not received the original R.C. book of the compliant mentioned vehicle belongs to the complainant and not kept  with them as such they are not able to return the said original R.c. book to the complainant are all not acceptable.

7.     Further it is not in dispute that the complainant have paid the entire loan amount to the opposite party except the balance of Rs.500/- the meager amount which is due towards the overdue charges.   Despites of receipt of legal notice issued by the complainant the opposite party have not given any reply or demanded the balance amount of meager amount of Rs.500/- due from the complainant and have not returned the original R.C. book to the complainant.   As such the deficiency of service attributed by the complainant against the opposite party is proved in this case.  

8.     However considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the opposite party is  directed to return the original R.C. book of the complaint mentioned vehicle belong to the complainant on receipt of Rs.500/- which is due by the complainant to the opposite party.  If the said original R.C. book is not available with the opposite party for the reason if any best known to the opposite party, as alternative the opposite party is directed to issue NOC to the complainant for the discharge of the said loan and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards the expense of getting duplicate R.C. book by the complainant himself from the concerned authority  and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards litigation charges to the complainant and as such the points 1  & 2 are answered  in favour of the complainant.

   In the result, this compliant is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to return the original R.C. book of the complaint mentioned vehicle belong to the complainant on receipt of Rs.500/- which is due by the complainant to the opposite party.  If the said original R.C. book is not available with the opposite party for the reason if any best known to the opposite party as alternative the opposite party is directed to issue NOC to the complainant for the discharge of the said loan and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards the expense of getting duplicate R.C. book by the complainant himself from the concerned authority  and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards litigation charges to the complainant from the date of receipt of copy of  this order.

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 20^th  day of July 2015.

 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

Complainant’s side documents

Ex.A1-  21.6.2007     - Copy of the registration certificate.

Ex.A2- 28.11.2007     - Copy of letter issued by Lakshmi Sujee Auto (P) Ltd.,

Ex.A3-                    -        - Copy of the payments made by the complainant.

Ex.A4- 23.11.2009     - Copy of receipt issued by opposite party for EMI payment.

Ex.A5-                    -        - Copy of the statement of account for the period from 8.2.2000 to

                               8.2.2010.

 

Ex.A6- 28.4.2010      - Copy of the letter issued by complainant to the opposite party.

 

Ex.A7-                    -        - Copy of the statement of account for the period from

                               15.3.08 to 22.7.10    

  

Opposite party’ side documents : -

Ex.B1-                    -        - Copy of shop Establishment Act.

Ex.B2-           -        - Copy of Loan agreement.

Ex.B3-                    -        - Copy of Statement of accounts.

 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                       PRESIDENT