Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/180/2022

Mr. S. Tamil Vendan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Phoenix Motors - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. M. Senthilkumar

30 Jan 2023

ORDER

                                                Date of Complaint Filed : 21.02.2022

                                                Date of Reservation      : 12.01.2023

                                                Date of Order               : 30.01.2023

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.180/2022

MONDAY, THE 30^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

Mr. S.Tamil Vendan, Male, aged about 36 years,

S/o. Saravanamuthu,

Sakthi Nagar,

Kolathur,

Chennai-600 099.                                                                                                                           ... Complainant             

..Vs..

The Service Manager (Head),

Phoenix Motors, 6/15,

Besant Avenue Road,

Adyar, Chennai.                                                                                                                                    ...  Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. M. Senthil Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : Exparte

 

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

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to the Complainant towards deficiency in service, mental agony along with cost of the complaint.

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

The Complainant is the regular customer of the Opposite Party and he is owner of the vehicle namely Jawa Classic in Chasis No.MZDKW1C16M1B53677 Engine No. NBE MB 020305  Key No.2486 having purchased the above said bike from the Opposite Party on 03.05.2021. The Complainant had taken the said vehicle and also paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the Opposite Party, who issued the bill to the Complainant. The Opposite Party has assured him that further payment can be arranged through HDFC Bank for monthly instalment of Rs.5,840/-. On believing the words of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has issued the cheque to the Opposite Party. After receiving the same, the Opposite Party did not presented the cheque in the bank and as such the Complainant has questioned the act of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party simply said that the cheque has been misplaced. The Complainant has paid the amount of Rs.4,000+ 3,000 to the Opposite Party through his bank account. In the meanwhile, even before giving any intimation from the bank, the IDFC first bank has issued the message to the Complainant which stated that he has to pay the instalment of Rs. 18,064/- for monthly. After receiving the message from the bank, the Complainant was shocked and surprised and as such the Complainant came to the bank and enquired about the amount regarding for the Jawa Bike loan. The Manager of the Opposite Party told him that mistake has been committed and also falsely processed the Jawa bike loan from the said bank. The Complainant told him that he has ready to pay the amount of Rs.5,840/- to the Opposite Party not on the amount of Rs.18,064/- and as such the Opposite Party requested him for rectifying the mistake. But till date the Opposite Party did not rectify the mistake. It further submitted that the Complainant came to the IDFC first bank for enquiring the above issue and as such the bank officials clearly stated that he has to cancel the loan and also the signature has been mismatched in the ECS Form and the Jawa company has committed fraud and bank officer told him that the amount has to be recovered from the Jawa company. But till date the Opposite Party did not cancel the Jawa loan and even there was no progress for cancelling the Jawa loan. In the meanwhile on 23.12.2021 the Opposite Party called the Complainant through the phone using filthy language. The Complainant came to the Opposite Party and requested for giving the advance amount and he is ready hand over the Jawa bike to the Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party did not accept his request. It is further submitted that the callousness and carelessness in handling the specific complaint of the customer, the company and its authorised service centres have caused the Complainant a huge financial loss, loss of time, emotional stress and mental agony. The Complainant had issued legal notices dated 26.12.2021 and on 27.12.2021 to the Opposite Party, which was received by the Opposite Party, with no response. Hence the complaint.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4. The Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice was served and remained absent and hence set exparte.

Points for Consideration

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

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

        The contention of the Complainant is that he had purchased a Vehicle, Jawa Classic, bearing Chasis No. MZDKW1C16M1B53677, Engine No. NBE 020305, Key No.2486 from the Opposite Party on 03.05.2021 on payment of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.3,000/-. It was contended that the Opposite Party had assured of arranging loan through HDFC Bank on monthly instalment of Rs.5,840/-. However the Complainant had received message from IDFC first Bank to pay the monthly instalment of Rs.18,064/-, which the Complainant never agreed and when the Complainant questioned and expressed his inability to pay such huge amount as monthly instalment, though the Opposite Party accepted to rectify their mistakes, till date they had not rectified their mistake. Further submitted that when enquired with the IDFC First Bank, the Bank officials stated to cancel the loan and that the Opposite Party had committed forgery of signature in the ECS form and cheque. However the Opposite Party had not cancelled the loan. Further it was contended that vehicle was handed over without hypothecation and Registration of the vehicle. Due to the fraudulent act of the Opposite Party his CIBIL Scores has become low which has caused emotional and financial stress. The legal notices dated 26.12.2021 and 27.12.2021 to the Opposite Party also evoked no response.

        The Complainant had taken delivery of Jawa Classic Vehicle bearing                            Chasis No.MZDKW1C16M1B53677 on 03.05.2021 from Opposite Party as evident from Ex.A-1. For payment of Rs.18,000/- to the Opposite Party, the Complainant had produced Ex.A-2, which is the payment to one Vimal and Chandra Mouleeswar, without disclosing what is their position/association with the Opposite Party. Even construing that such payment was made to the Opposite Party, for taking delivery of vehicle, the Complainant in order to prove the allegation that he had consented with the Opposite Party to arrange loan for him through HDFC Bank for Rs.5840/- and that the loan from IDFC First Bank was obtained by forgering his signature the Complainant has not produced any document to substantiate his case.   

Further by mere stating in the Written Argument that the vehicle was handed over by the Opposite Party to the Complainant without hypothecation and Registration in the absence of such pleading and supporting documents, the same cannot be looked into, by this Commission.

        Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the considered view that, the Complainant had failed to prove his case with supporting document that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service and hence this Commission is not in a position to make the Opposite Party liable for the alleged deficiency in service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2:

As discussed and decided Point No.1, that the Complainant had failed to prove his case, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed or for any other relief(s). Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

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

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 30^th of January 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

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

 

Ex.A1	03.05.2021	Delivery challan issued by the Opposite Party
Ex.A2	30.04.2021 03.05.2021 and  28.09.2021	Payment receipt to the Opposite Party by the Complainant for a sum of Rs.18,000/- through Complainant’s G-pay
Ex.A3	26.12.2021	Legal notice issued by the Complainant along with the Postal Receipt
Ex.A4	22.07.2022	Cibil score and report

 

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

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT