Date of Filing : 15.03.2012
Date of Order : 13.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd 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 I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.97/2012
WEDNESDAY THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
Pradeep Gopalan,
No.1, Sai Villa Sabari Street,
Chitlapakkam,
Chennai 600 064. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Managing Director,
M/s. Sriram City Union Finance,
No.621, Sire Mansion 2nd Floor,
Anna Salai,
Model School Road,
Thousand Light,
Chennai 600 006.
2. Mr. Ramamoorthy,
General Manager,
M/s. Sathya Motors,
TVS Main Dealer,
G.S.T. Road,
Tambaram Sanatorium,
(Near Fire station),
Chennai 600 047.
3. The Area Sales Manager,
M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd.,
No.38, Venkatakrishna Road,
Mandaiveli,
Chennai 600 028. ..Opposite parties.
For the Complainant : Party in person.
For the Opposite parties 1 & 3 : Dismissed as not pressed.
For the opposite party-2 : M/s. K.Kumaran & another
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to hand over original R.C. book and to refund a sum of Rs.3,660/- and Rs.1,730/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs.40,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN :: MEMBER-II
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:
The complainant submit that he had purchased a TVS JIVE Motor cycle with the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.52,843/- including cost of the vehicle registration charges, insurance premium, handling charges, Saree Guard Jive Butterfly bar with admissible taxes on 31.10.2011 and availed a loan from Shriram City Union Finance opposite party-1 by paying EMI of Rs.2083/- for 22 months and collected 22 cheque leaves, five photos, three months bank statement, voter ID card, ration card, E.B bill xerox from the complainant. The complainant further states that he had paid Rs.11,500 as advance and desires to pay the balance Rs.45,000/ in equitable installments. But to his surprise it shows the advance paid by him is Rs.11,500/-. Whereas in the statement given by the Financer shows Rs.7,843/- instead Rs.11,500/-. They are not giving any explanation called for as of date. There is a huge difference of amount collected Rs.3660/-. This is amounts to “Unfair Trade Practice”. Another charge appeared in the invoice is Rs.1730/- as handling charges, while asked for clarification they failed to give proper answer and accounting. Moreover, having received the advance and the finance from opposite party-1 by the opposite party-2 they have not delivered the important document which is very much needed by the complainant such as original RC book, life tax card, insurance policy, excess amount collected and loan related statements in bifurcation stating the EMI, principle, and interest thereon. Despite of several demands made by the complainant, the opposite party did not provide any relief in this regard. As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant sought for claims to hand over original R.C. book and to refund a sum of Rs.3,660/- and Rs.1,730/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs.40,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Written version of 1st opposite party is as follows:
2. The opposite party-1 stated that the prayer of the complainant is nebulous and not specific. The opposite party states that the complainant has not clearly mentioned on whose side he is relying upon the documents are to be supplied to him. The opposite party in para-4 of his written version he has clearly mentioned the EMI schedule of the complainant what he is supposed pay and they could not accept the averments shown against the opposite party-1 by the complainant and just to create a case the complainant had built up records to substantiate that he had made so many correspondences. In the mean time the complainant also filed CMP for accepting additional documents stating that the complainant and his family members have filed similar cases in this forum under case 91/2011, 389/2009 and 522/2007 in the name of M/s. Sujesh and M/s.Pradeep Gopalan. The opposite party had paid Rs.18,000/- by way of cheques on 22.2.2012 drawn in favour of the opposite parties as full and final settlement of all claim in respect of above mentioned cases to that effect. The 1st opposite party further submit that after availing the loan the complainant’s 2 EMI cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds. Subsequently, he paid two cash payments. But the complainant did not pay amounts towards cheques return charges and delayed payment. As per contractual agreement clause 3.3 and 3.4 if the borrower committed default, he shall be liable to pay the cheque return charges and overdue charges as mentioned in the agreement. He is a defaulter and failed to pay the installment. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,600/- as advance EMI. The amount of Rs.53,000/- received from the first opposite party will not be reflected in the invoices. The name furnished by the complainant alone will be reflected in invoices. The 1st opposite party furnished below the details of how the loan amount has been disbursed. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore this compliant deserve to be dismissed with costs.
Written version of 2nd opposite party is as follows:
3. The 2nd opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. It is true that the complainant had purchased the TVS JIVE motor cycle bearing the registration No.TN 22 CW 8768 from the opposite party i.e. M/s. Sathya Motors, Chennai. The said vehicle was hypothecated under the vehicle finance from the M/s. Shriram City Union Finance for an EMI fixed at Rs.2650/- for 20 months. Only to such extent the contract between the 2nd opposite party and the complaint existed. The 1st opposite party it is understood that the complainant had defaulted and failed to pay the EMI’s and with regard to the prayer sought in this complaint with respect to handing over of RC Book, loan schedules are against the 1st opposite party alone and the opposite party i.e. M/s. Sathya Motors has no role to do with. The 2nd opposite party did not collect any excess amount from the complainant and further stated that the opposite party did not collect Rs.3660/- as the vehicle purchased by the complainant was under the hypothecation with the 1st opposite party all monetary transactions were done within the opposite parties, that apart the amount Rs.1770/- was collected towards miscellaneous expenses and no amount was collected to bribe any RTO officials. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore this compliant deserve to be dismissed with costs.
4. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of 2nd opposite party filed and no document was marked on the side of the 2nd opposite party.
5. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
6. POINTS 1 & 2 :
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were marked on the side of the complainant. Written version and proof affidavit filed by the 2nd opposite party and also considered the both side arguments.
7. The complainant had purchased a TVS JIVE Motor cycle with the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.52,843/- under Ex.A4 including cost of the vehicle registration charges, insurance premium, handling charges, Saree Guard Jive Butterfly bar with admissible taxes on 31.10.2011 and availed a loan from Shriram City Union Finance opposite party-1 by paying EMI of Rs.2083/- for 22 months and collected 22 cheque leaves, five photos, three months bank statement, voter ID card, ration card, E.B bill xerox from the complainant under Ex.A2. The complainant states that he had paid Rs.11,500/- as advance and desires to pay the balance Rs.45,000/ in equitable installments. But to his surprise it shows the advance paid by him is Rs.11,500/-. Whereas in the statement given by the Financer shows Rs.7,843/- and contended that Rs.3,660/- was not reflected in his account. Moreover having received the advance and the finance from opposite party-1 by the opposite party-2 they have not delivered the important document which is very much needed by the complainant such as original RC book, life tax card, insurance policy, excess amount collected and loan related statements in bifurcation, stating the EMI, principle, and interest thereon. Since the opposite party-2 had not given the facts and figures of loan details to him he was put into dark about his liability. In the mean time the complainant will have to show the documents to police verification whenever he ply his vehicle on the road and unnecessary torture he is forced to face because of non possession of relevant vehicular documents. The 2nd opposite party being the dealer and the person who has collected the full consideration of the vehicle which was in possession of the complainant need to arrange for the RC book, insurance document, road tax slip, and relevant additional things which are to be maintained by the complainant, but it was not given to him neither at the time of delivery of the vehicle nor till the filing of this complaint to the forum. Hence the complainant sought a redressal measure from this forum directing the opposite parties to deliver the documents and excess amount collected from the complainant.
8. The opposite party-1 contended that the prayer of the complainant is nebulous and not specific. The opposite party states that the complainant has not clearly mentioned on whose side he is relying upon the documents are to be supplied to. The opposite party in para-4 of his written version he has clearly mentioned the EMI schedule of the complainant what he is supposed pay and they could not accept the averments shown against the opposite party-1 by the complainant and just to create a case the complainant had built up records to substantiate that he had made so many correspondences. In the mean time the complainant also filed CMP for accepting additional documents stating that the complainant and his family members have filed similar cases in this forum under case 91/2011, 389/2009 and 522/2007 in the name of M/s. Sujesh and Ms/Pradeep Gopalan the opposite party had paid Rs.18,000/- by way of cheques on 22.2.2012 drawn in favour of the opposite parties as full and final settlement of all claim. In respect of above mentioned cases to that effect, the complainant also filed a Memo on 3.1.2013 to this forum stating that he has not insisting the opposite parties 1 & 3 involved in this case are to be deleted. Hence the dispute was continued between the complainant and opposite party-2 and the complainant’s arguments and learned counsel of opposite party-2 was heard by this forum and the decisions were arrived, though the opposite party-2 requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.
9. In pursuant of the complaint, the documents filed in this forum along with written version and proof affidavit filed by both the parties responsible for the dispute, we are of the considered view that the opposite party-2 had received full and final payment through opposite party-1 and the complainant was not disputed by opposite party-2 we found the dereliction of duty of opposite party-2 in providing the relevant documents such as RC book, user manual, warranty card, life tax, insurance documents to the consumer which was violated and because of the complainant was forced to face problem when he ply the vehicle on the road by the police check where he was subject to threat and penalties. Had these documents were delivered to the consumer in time he could not have mental agony and avoid threats from the authorities concerned. Hence we judiciously feel and direct the opposite party-2 to hand over the registration certificate, life tax, insurance policy, user manual and warranty card if any to the complainant immediately. Since the complainant had filed a memo to withdrew opposite party-1 and 3 from the complaint, it is directed the opposite party-2 to comply with the production or submission of these documents to the complainant and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 2nd opposite party is directed to hand over the registration certificate, life tax, insurance policy, user manual and warranty card if any to the complainant immediately and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) as litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above compensation amount (Rs.10,000/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment. Accordingly the complaint against the Opposite parties 1 & 3 are already dismissed as not pressed.
Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 13th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- 7.9.2011 - Copy of Proforma Invoice.
Ex.A2- - - Copy of Finance Scribbling Incomplete details.
Ex.A3- 2.12.2011 - Copy of Booking and for Rs.11,500/-
Ex.A4- 31.10.2011 - Copy of Final invoice.
Ex.A5- 16.12.2011 - Copy of letter addressed to dealer.
Ex.A6- 5.1.2012 - Copy of letter addressed to dealer.
Ex.A7- 13.1.2012 - Copy of letter addressed to dealer.
Ex.A8- 20.1.2012 - Copy of letter addressed to dealer.
Ex.A9- 25.1.2012 - Copy of letter addressed to Shriram City Union Finance.
Ex.A10-13.1.2012 - Copy of letter to TVS.
Ex.A11-3.3.2012 - Copy of letter addressed to RM Sales TVS.
Ex.A12- - - Copy of loan repaid statement of ShriRam City Union.
Ex.A13- - - Copy of 2nd opposite party maintenance register
Opposite parties’ side documents: .. Nil ..
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
