Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

351/2008

L.Kamalakkannan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.,Manager - Opp.Party(s)

party in person

16 May 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 22.08.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 16.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.351 /2008

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 16^TH DAY OF MAY 2018

                                 

L. Kamalakkannan,

S/o. Mr. G. Lakshmipathy,

No.4/8, Kattabomman Street,

West Tambaram,

Chennai – 600 045.                                                .. Complainant.                                                        ..Versus..

1. The Manager,

M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.,

No.45, Montieth Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.

 

2. The Regional Transport Officer,

Marthandam,

Kanyakumari District.

 

3. The Regional Transport Officer,

Meenambakkam,

Chennai – 600 027.                                             ..  Opposite parties.

          

For complainant                        :  Party in person

Counsel for 1^st opposite party  :  M/s. Anand, Abdul & Vinodh

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party :  Exparte

For 3^rd opposite party                :  Party in person

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- to meet out the financial loss with interest for the period from 03.08.2007 to till the date of the order, to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he purchased a second hand Toyoto Qualis 2002 Model vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 74 X 1459 with tourist permit from one Tr. S. Srinivasan.The complainant submits that he availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the 1^st opposite party by way of Hire Purchase Agreement dated 31.07.2007.Further the complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.08.2007 which includes, the charges of Rs.8,000/- for name transfer and permitafter taking the RC book by the opposite party. Further the complainant submits that till September 2007, the complainant was not heard anything from the 1^st opposite party and the insurance was due on 19.9.2007.The complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,961/- to renew the insurance.On 15.10.2007, the complainant received a telephone message from the 1^st opposite party, demanding a sum of Rs.27,000/- towards name transfer, fitness certificate in which, a sum of Rs.8,000/- was deducted on the request of the complainant. The complainant paid the said amount of Rs.18,000/- to the 1^st opposite party through his agent Mr. Siva Kumar.Further the complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party directed him through one Mr. John, the staff to go over to Marthandum on 4.11.2007 for proper name transfer etc.Further the complainant submits that till 15.8.2007, the complainant paid EMI regularly but he did not receive the RC book till April 2008.Hence he stopped the bank payment. During the month of August 2007, the 1^st opposite party suddenly handed over the RC book permit and the copy of insurance dated:17.04.2008. The name transfer was done by RTO Meenambakkam on 25.02.2008 and the papers were sent to the RTO Marthandam.As per the Hypothecation Agreement,  the endorsement made in the RC book comes to effect from 24.03.2008 whereas the Hypothecation Agreement was made on 31.07.2008.  Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant issued notice dated:26.06.2008 but the opposite parties have not sent any reply for the reasons best known to them.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.The 1^st opposite party states that admittedly, the complainant availed a loan from this 1^st opposite party for purchase of a second hand vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 74 X 1459  to the tune of Rs.3,02,448/-  under loan agreement 31.7.2007, agreed to repay the amount in 18 equated monthly installment which is commencing from 15.08.2007 to 15.01.2009.   The 1^st opposite party states that, the allegation of the complainant that, the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- inclusive of Rs.8,000/- for transfer of vehicle and transfer of permit is absolutely false.   In the Agreement of Hypothecation, it is very clear regarding the loan and installment.  Further the 1^st opposite party states that, immediately after sanction of loan and due name transfer / purchase, the original RC book was handed over to the complainant is also very clearly seen in the Hypothecation Agreement.   Further the allegation of claim of extra charges of Rs.8,000/- for change of registration and other expenditure was included in the loan amount are absolutely false. The complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of loan.  The complainant had paid loan till 15.08.2007.    Thereafter, the complainant committed default in payment of EMIs.   Hence the opposite parties filed suitable petition before the Hon’ble High Court in Application No. 3851/08 as per Ex.B6 and obtained police help for repossession and ceased the vehicle and sold out.  The sale proceedings were adjusted with the loan amount.  Now the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,27,000/- to the opposite parties.   Therefore there is no deficiency in service by the 1^st opposite party.   Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.  

4.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the 3^rd opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.The 3^rd opposite party submits that the form of note for Transfer of Ownership in (Form – 29) had been submitted along with enclosures at Unit Office, Tambaram for the Vehicles – Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.TN 74 X 1459 on 12.03.2008 and the transfer of ownership has been ordered on 14.03.2008 on the basis of the order of transfer of Contract Carriage Permit, from the name of Tr. S. Sreenivasan, to the name of Tr. L. Kamalakannan by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority.Hence there is no irregularity in the proceedings made by the 3^rd opposite party.Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party filed and documents from Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 are filed and marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.  In spite of sufficient time is given, the 3^rd opposite party has not come forward to file his proof affidavit as his evidence.   Hence evidence of the 3^rd opposite party is closed.     

6.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- towards financial loss from 03.08.2007 with interest as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation  for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

7.     On point:-

The 1^st opposite party filed written arguments.   The complainant, 1 & 3^rd opposite parties have not turned up to advance any oral arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.   Admittedly, the complainant purchased a second hand Toyoto Qualis 2002 Model vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 74 X 1459 as per Ex.A1 with tourist permit from one Tr. S. Srinivasan.   It is also admitted that the complaint availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the 1^st opposite party by way of Hire Purchase Agreement dated 31.07.2007 as per Ex.A2. Further                          the contention of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.08.2007 which includes the charges of Rs.8,000/- for name transfer and permit   after taking the RC book by the opposite party.  Further the contention of the complainant is that till September 2007, the complainant was not heard anything from the 1^st opposite party and the insurance was due on 19.9.2007.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,961/- to renew the insurance.   On 15.10.2007, the complainant received a telephone message form the 1^st opposite party, demanding a sum of Rs.27,000/- towards name transfer, fitness certificate in which, a sum of Rs.8,000/- was deducted on the request of the complainant.  The complainant paid the said amount of Rs.18,000/- to the 1^st opposite party through his agent Siva Kumar but no record.   

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that  the 1^st opposite party directed him through one Mr. John the staff to go over to Marthandum  on 4.11.2007 for proper name transfer etc.    Further the contention of the complainant is that till 15.8.2007 the complainant paid EMI regularly but he did not receive the RC book till April 2008. Hence he stopped the bank payment.  During the month of August 2007, the 1^st opposite party suddenly handed over the RC book permit and the copy of insurance dated:17.04.2008 as per Ex.A6.   But on a perusal of RC book, it was noticed that the Form CCPA as per Ex.A3 was fake. The name transfer was done by RTO Meenambakkam on 25.02.2008 and send the papers to the RTO Marthandam.   As per the Hypothecation  Agreement,  the endorsement made in the RC book comes to effect from 24.03.2008 whereas the Hypothecation Agreement was made on 31.07.2008 proves the unfair trade practice.

9.     The 1^st opposite party contended that admittedly, the complainant availed a loan from this 1^st opposite party for purchase of a second hand vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 74 X 1459  to the tune of Rs.3,02,448/-  under loan agreement 31.7.2007 agreed to repay the amount in 18 equated monthly instalment which is commencing from 15.08.2007 to 15.01.2009.   The allegation of the complainant is that the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000   inclusive of Rs.8,000/- for transfer of vehicle and transfer of permit is absolutely false.   In the Agreement of Hypothecation, it is very clear regarding the loan and instalment.  Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that, immediately after sanction of loan and due name transfer / purchase, the original RC book was handed over to the complainant is also very clearly seen in the Hypothecation Agreement.  

10.   Further the allegation of claiming extra charges of Rs.8,000/- for change of registration and other expenditure was included in the loan amount are absolutely false. The complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of loan.  The complainant had paid loan till 15.08.2007.    Thereafter, the complainant committed default in payment of EMIs.   Hence the opposite parties filed suitable petition before the Hon’ble High Court in Application No. 3851/08 as per Ex.B6 and obtained police help for repossession and ceased the vehicle and sold out.    The sale proceedings were adjusted with the loan amount.  Now the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,27,000 - to the opposite parties.  The opposite party had filed the Statement of Accounts as per Ex.B5 which shows that, the complainant is a chronic defaulter.   Further such default is observed by the Hon’ble High Court also.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 16^th  day of May 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	16.09.2002	Copy of RC Book
Ex.A2		Copy of Insurance
Ex.A3	24.03.2008	Copy of CCPA Form
Ex.A4	04.04.2008	Copy of RTO letter
Ex.A5	06.11.2007	Copy of Emission Test Certificate
Ex.A6		Copy of Permit copy with letter
Ex.A7	03.06.2008	Copy of Statement of TCPS, Tambaram
Ex.A8	13.06.2008	Copy of complaint to the TCPS, Tambaram
Ex.A9	30.05.2008	Signature attested letter from Bank
Ex.A10	26.06.2008	Copy of letter issued to the opposite parties
Ex.A11		Copy of bills letter sent to the opposite parties

 

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1		Copy of loan agreement
Ex.B2		Copy of RC in the name of previous owner
Ex.B3		Copy of permit in the name of the previous owner
Ex.B4		Copy of the order for transfer of Maxicab permit in the name of the complainant
Ex.B5	29.12.2008	Copy of statement of accounts
Ex.B6	21.08.2008	Copy of the order in application No.3851/2008 by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras

 

2^ND OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  EXPARTE

3^RD OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  CLOSED

 

 

MEMBER  I                                                                      PRESIDENT