Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/89/2014

C.R.Bhaskar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.HDFC Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

V.Nandhakumar

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                    Date of Complaint Filed : 10.04.2013

                                                    Date of Reservation      : 20.07.2022

                                                    Date of Order               : 03.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:  TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                         : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,         :  MEMBER  I 

                     THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,  : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 89/2014

WEDNESDAY, THE 3^rd DAY OF AUGUST 2022

C.R. Bhaskar,

S/o. C.R. Radhakrishnan,

No.61, Gangai Amman Koil Street,

Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094.                                  ... Complainant  

 

..Vs..

HDFC bank Ltd,

Rep. by Manager,

Retail Assets Division,

No.56, G.N. Chetty Road,

3^rd Floor, T.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                   ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. V. Nandhakumar

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s. Pass Associates

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A.,B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to deliver the original RC book pertaining to the Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 09 Q 4881 to the Complainant and direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.15 lakhs for the pain, suffering and injury which the Opposite Party has cost on account of the deficiency in service along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

                The Complainant was desirous of purchasing a pre-owned car and the Opposite Party herein identified and suggested a Ford icon bearing Registration No. TN 09 Q 4881, Model 2000 for a sum of Rs. 3,10,000/-. The Opposite Party agreed to finance a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-by way of loan while the balance of a sum of Rs.85,000/-was to be invested by him. The loan of Rs. 2,25,000/- was liable to be repaid in monthly equated installments of Rs. 7965/-commencing from 2nd of June 2005 to May 2008 for a period of 36 months. The  necessary agreements evidencing hypothecation of the vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN 09 Q 4881 was executed by him. The original of the registration certificate pertaining to the vehicle was retained by the Opposite Party. No copies of any documents that were executed by him for obtaining the loan were furnished to the Complainant. Even though the original of the R.C.Book stands in his name, no other person other than him is entitled to have the custody of the original registration certificate. The registration certificate is liable to be with him as the same is to be produced as and when demanded by the law enforcement authority. When the vehicle crosses the border of Tamil Nadu, unless the original RC book is produced the vehicle will not be permitted to proceed. For renewal of insurance and payment of road tax the original RC book is liable to be produced. In spite of his best persuasion the Opposite Party refused to deliver the registration certificate to him. On account of the failure on the part of the Opposite Party to deliver the RC book, insurance for the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 09 Q 4881 has not been renewed. Unless the original of the RC book is produced the insurance authorities as well as the authorities collecting the road tax would not renew this same. While he was protesting about the attitude of the Opposite Party constantly, he was paying the monthly installments regularly for the fear in case of any default the vehicle would be seized by the Opposite Party. The vehicle could not be put to proper use as he  was deprived from using the vehicle without valid insurance and road tax. His best efforts to secure the RC book proved to be futile. He is a diploma holder in mechanical engineering and is servicing and overhauling heavy earth moving equipments for the Chennai Corporation. His work involves travelling within the city of Chennai to various places. It is precisely to meet out his travelling requirements he had purchased the vehicle. on account of the circumstances mentioned above, coupled with the fact that the Opposite Party was receiving the monthly installments without delivering the original RC book, he informed the Opposite Party that unless the RC book is delivered he would not be paying the installments any further, as the deprivation of the RC book had cost untold misery and hardship to the Complainant. on 02/02/2008 the Opposite Party issued a demand notice for a sum of Rs. 68,822.68p as payable stating that the last 6 instalments amounting to Rs.47,790 was due from him. The notice was issued only with a view to coerce him. The Opposite Party attempted to seize the vehicle from him on account of which the Complainant was obliged to prefer O.S.No.7580 of 2008 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai seeking for permanent injunction restraining the Opposite Party from reprocessing the vehicle. In order to establish his bona fides, who had faithfully and scrupulously paid 24 instalments, he volunteered to pay the balance of the instalments by depositing the same to the credit of the suit. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.47,790/- was deposited in court on 31^st of October 2008. The learned XI-Asst. Judge City Civil Court was also pleased to grant an order of Interim Injunction as prayed for O.S.No.7580 of 2008.  The suit bearing O.S No.7580 OF 2008 was decreed on 21^st of October 2009. The decree has become final as no appeal has been preferred by the Opposite Party challenging the decree. In the proceedings which were initiated before the City Civil Court, the Opposite Party in its written statement admitted possession of the RC book and other documents in his custody. The Opposite Party contended that they would consider returning the documents only when the loan is entirely closed. He has written letters dated 25^th of February 2008 and 01.02.2008, demanding delivery of RC book. Finally, a legal notice dated 09.05.2012 was issued by him to the Opposite Party calling upon him to return the RC book as well as pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by way of compensation for the deficiency in service caused by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party acknowledged the registered letter on 10.05.2012, and so far has not complied with the demands set out in the notice. The conduct of the Opposite Party in retaining the RC book in spite of several demands gives rise to a continuous cause of action for him to proceed against the Opposite Party for the delivery of RC book and for compensation for pain and suffering which he has experienced on account of the deficiency in service caused by the Opposite Party. The investment made by him has resulted in total waste. He was travelling by auto and taxi for the discharge of his professional duties in the sphere of his business activities.  He was not in position to muster further finance for purchase of another vehicle. The mental strain and stress which the Complainant had undergone on account of the conduct of the Opposite Party was unbearable. It is only on account of the fault, imperfection or inadequacy on the part of the Opposite Party he was put to loss and hardship. The services rendered by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service as defined under the Act and the Opposite Party is liable to compensate him for the same. The non-payment of the road tax will now involve further penalty by the authorities concerned. All these factors cumulatively have made him to seek for damages of a sum of Rs.15 lakhs from the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint.

3.Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

        The Opposite Party is a very reputed bank and is one of the best private sector Banks in India. The Bank focuses on product quality and service excellence. In fact, it is extremely gratifying that the Bank's efforts towards providing customer convenience is being appreciated both nationally and internationally for the past two decades and that the Bank and its staffs are marching forward with the object of service excellence towards its customers. The Complainant had approached them during the year 2005 with a request to  avail  finance  for purchasing  the  used car

through the used car dealer M/s S.M.Cars, Old No.25, New No.50, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. He availed a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as loan which shall be repayable in 36 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.7,965/- which includes the finance charges. In respect of the same, the Complainant and Opposite Party had entered into an agreement No.1501966 dated 30.05.2005. Since it is an used Car, it is obligatory on the part of the Complainant to handover the Original Registration Certificate with the Opposite Party being the financier for making necessary endorsement regarding the Opposite Party's lien over the vehicle. However, he had stated that the Original Registration Certificate is lying with the Car dealer viz., S.M.Cars who would hand over the same to the Opposite Party. In these circumstances, the dealer M/S S.M.Cars had issued a letter of dealer indemnity dated 30.08.2005 indemnifying to furnish the Registration Certificate to them. Based on the aforesaid indemnification, they had extended the financial facility and that the Complainant has been enjoying the benefits of the loan vehicle in reference. However, the said dealer M/s S.M.Cars had not kept up their promise in providing the original R.C. in spite of their several reminders. In these circumstances, the Complainant has been repeatedly approaching them demanding the R.C. and that they had informed the Complainant to approach the Car dealer M/s S.M.Cars as neither the  Complainant taken any steps nor the Car dealer M/S S.M.Cars kept up their promise in furnishing the R.C. to them. In these circumstances, citing the non availability of R.C. the Complainant had unilaterally stopped the payment of installments and filed a suit in O.S.No.7580 of 2008 on the file of the XI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in which they were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed forbearing them from repossessing the vehicle illegally. In fact, it is pertinent to state that the Complainant had by securing the exparte decree and taking undue advantage of the same had failed to discharge the dues under the loan agreement and that he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,67,463/- to them as on 26.06.2014, Since, he is enjoying the vehicle in reference and deriving benefit out of it without discharging the lawful dues under the loan agreement, they are contemplating legal proceedings to recover the dues. That be so, in order to avoid the payment of lawful dues to them, the Complainant had approached this Hon'ble Forum claiming compensation by setting up a false and frivolous case. In fact, as stated above, he  having chosen to issue a legal notice dated 09.05.2012 to them as well as the Car dealer S.M.Cars, he had failed to implicate the Car dealer M/S S.M.Cars, as party to the above Complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary party being the Car dealer M/S S.M.Cars. In any event, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as he had kept quiet for about nine years and that  he has miserably failed to assign any reason much less any valid reason for the enormous delay. Hence, the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9  were marked.The Opposite Party submitted its Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Party, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4  were marked.   

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether the Complaint is affected by non-joinder of necessary party?

2.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

4. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled for?

Point No.1 and 2:-

It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased a pre-owned Ford Icon car bearing Registration No. TN 09 Q 4881, Model 2000 under Loan Agreement with the Opposite Party.

The dispute arose when the original of the registration certificate pertaining to the vehicle was retained by the Opposite Party, inspite of entire payment made by the Complainant.

On perusal of the Complaint, Written version and Exhibits marked on either side, it is clear that the Complainant had filed a suit in O.S.No.7580 of 2008 before the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, against the Opposite Party from restraining them from repossessing the vehicle, wherein in the Plaint by the Complainant, marked as Ex.B-6 it was mentioned that the Opposite Party had not handed over the Original Registration Certificate, in spite of his repeated demands, which the Opposite Party is duty bound to hand over the Original R.C.Book after endorsement of hire Purchase entered with them, due to which the Insurance and Road Tax for the said vehicle could not be renewed and the same were expired in 2006, as the same were not furnished the vehicle was kept idle without use for 2 years for want of the said documents for renewal. It was also mentioned that he is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.47,790/- towards 6 monthly instalments as the same was not paid on account of the Opposite Party failed to deliver the R.C.Book and other connected documents to the Complainant. As the Opposite had sent termination notice dated 02.02.2008 demanding Rs.68,822.68p and on attempt made by the Opposite Party to repossess the vehicle, the above suit has been filed.It is submitted that the Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.47,790/- in O.S.No.7580 of 2008 before the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, and the Suit was decreed ex-parteon 21.10.2009 as found in Ex.A-8 and the same was not challenged by the Opposite Party. From perusal of Ex.A-2, the Road Tax expired on 31.03.2006. From perusal of Ex.A-4, Letter dated 01.02.2008 addressed to the Opposite Party, the Complainant had requested for handing over R.C.Book and his willingness to foreclose the Loan. The Complainant had issued a legal notice dated 09.05.2012 to the Opposite Party and the dealer, wherein the Complainant had clearly mentioned about non handing over of the R.C.Book and other connected documents to him, also about the remittance of Rs.47,790/- in the suit filed by him along with the particulars of the suit and had called upon the Opposite Party to compensate for the agony, pain and sufferings suffered by him on the deficiency of service committed by them, in spite of receipt of the said legal notice the Opposite Party remained silent without responding. It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Party who had entered appearance in the said suit and had filed their Written Statement, which was marked as Ex.A-7 and thereafter had remained ex-parte, wherein from Ex.A-7 it is clear that the Opposite Party was in possession of the R.C.Book andhad no where averred about the Original R.C.Book was with the dealer and the dealer had indemnified them to provide the R.C.Book within 10 days from the date of disbursement of Loan to the Complainant, failing which the dealer would refund the disbursed amount with interest @ 2% per month and the said document was produced before this Commission and the same was marked as Ex.B-3. The very document, i.e., Ex.A-3 would clearly evidence the lethargic and negligent attitude of the Opposite Party in not collecting the original R.C.Book from the dealer, assuming that the Original R.C.Book was with the said Dealer, the Opposite Party should have taken action against the said dealer for collecting the R.C.Book apart from collecting the Loan amount with interest agreed by the Dealer as mentioned in Ex.B-3, instead without providing the Original R.C.Book to the Complainant, which the Complainant is legally entitled to have the original R.C.Book after creating Endorsement of Hire Purchase entered into with the Opposite Party, for renewal of Road Tax and insurance. Hence, the Contentions of the Opposite Party that the complaint is affected by non-joinder of necessary party, the Original R.C.Book was in possession of the dealer and not handed over is in clear contradiction to the Written Statement filed by the Opposite Party in the suit as found in Ex.A-7, and alleging the Complainant is due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,67,463/- as on 26.06.2014, without challenging the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.7580 of 2008 passed by XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, are not at all legally sustainable. Since the Opposite Party who is solely liable and responsible for handing over the original R.C.Book to the Complainant after entering into the Loan Agreement, the Dealer is not at all a necessary party to the proceedings. Therefore we are of the view that the Complaint is not affected by Non-Joinder of necessary Party.

On discussion made above, the Opposite had lethargically and negligently failed to hand over the Original R.C.Book to the Complainant, clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, and thereby had caused serious mental agony to the Complainant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service. Accordingly Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

Point No.3 and 4:-

As discussed and decided Point No.2 against the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party is liable to deliver the Original R.C.Book pertaining to the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 09 Q 4881 and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the suffering and injury and deficiency of service and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs, to the Complainant. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos. 3 and 4 are answered.

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to deliver the Original RC book pertaining to the Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 09 Q 4881 to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only)  for the suffering and injury and deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Party and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost, within 8 weeks from the date of the order, failing which the Complainant is entitled to recover the above said amounts with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realization.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  3^rd of August 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	26.05.2005	Copy of Advance receipt issued by S.M.Cars
Ex.A2	20.04.2005	Copy of Road tax for the period ending 2006
Ex.A3	2005-2006	Copy of United India Insurance for 2005-2006
Ex.A4	01.02.2008	Copy of Letter issued by Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A5	09.05.2012	Copy of Notice issued to Opposite Party with Acknowledgement
Ex.A6	31.10.2008	Copy of Plaint in O.S.7580 of 2008
Ex.A7	09.07.2009	Copy of Written statement in O.S 7580 of 2008
Ex.A8	21.10.2009	Copy of Decree & Judgement in O.S 7580 of 2008
Ex.A9	10.05.2012	Copy of Returned cover addressed to S.M Cars

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1	23.04.2015	Copy of Board Resolution
Ex.B2	30.05.2005	Copy of Loan Agreement No.1501966
Ex.B3	30.08.2005	Copy of the Letter of dealer indemnity
Ex.B4	26.06.2014	Copy of the Statement of Accounts of the Complainant.

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                      MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT