Haryana

StateCommission

A/1223/2018

M/S JOY HONDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAMPHAL AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

25 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.1223 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution: 30.10.2018

Date of order: 25.05.2023

 

M/s Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Ltd. Plot No.2, Near Jeet Dharam Kanta, OP Jindal Marg, Hisar through its authorized representative.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Ramphal son of Shri Kitab Singh, aged about 41 years, resident of VPO Kinala, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar.

2.      Manager, Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Company Ltd. Hisar.

3.      Managing Director, Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Company Ltd. Dare House Ist Floor 2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rohit Goswami, proxy counsel for Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr. J.K. Sehrawat, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Ms. Monika Thathai, Advocate for the respondent No.2 & 3.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          Delay of 95 days in filing of present appeal stand condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.1223 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 11.06.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar(In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.81 of 2017, which wasallowed.

3.      The brief facts of the case are that complainant after consulting from OP No.1 agreed to purchase a new mobilio car. OPNo.1 assured complainant that he will have to deposit the margin money and the remaining amount would be financed by OP No.2 and 3. On 03.07.2016, OP No.1 received Rs.1,50,000/- in cash from complainant and also took his signatures on various blank papers and told him that the remaining excess amount would be disbursed to him by OP No.2 & 3. OP No.1 also assured that new model of 2016 mobilio car bearing Chassis No.MAKDD57AKEN001316 Engine No.N15a11313023 will be delivered to him. Even since then the complainant has been paying the installments regularly to OP No.2 and 3. Lateron when complainant happened to meetOPNo.2 then it come to his knowledge that an invoice of Rs.6,93,750/- was prepared by the OPNo.1 which has received an amount of Rs.10,07,500/- from OPsNo.2&3 in addition of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash from the complainant directly. Further complainant also learnt that OPNo.1 has supplied him an old model car with year of manufacture of 2015   also said vehicle was  earlier used as a demo car and it has already been driven for so many kilometers. In February, 2017 the officials of OPsNo.1 & 2 snatched the key of the said vehicle of the complainant from him forcibly and unlawfully and took control and custody of the above said vehicle from complainant and sped away from the spot with his car. The complainant approached the concerned police station and informed the police about this incident. Thereafter he also went to the office of OPNo.2 and requested for releasing his vehicle. Despite complainant having deposited all the installments in time and requested OPNo.2 that he was even ready to deposit other installments pending, if any and to release his above said vehicle but OPno.2 did not heed to the legal and genuine requests of the complainant. Thus there was gross deficiency on the part of the OPsby way of firstly providing an old model vehicle and then by snatching the same illegally, unlawfully with the help of their musclemen and without resorting to due course of law. This is how OPsillegally and unlawfully delivered old Model of 2014 to the complainant and then forcibly took it in their custody despite complainant having already paid all the installments to the respondents timely and when nothing was due towards him. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

4.      In its written version, OP No.1raised preliminary objections  this complaint being false, frivolous and vexatious; without any cause of action; no locus standi; his having concealed and suppressed material facts from this Forum and also being estopped by his own act and conduct and being not maintainable also. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant did not pay a single penny as alleged in the body of complaint. Further it was denied that answering respondent has obtained his signatures on various blanks papers and promised him that the any amount would be disbursed to him by OPs No.2 & 3. It was also averred that the complainant has concocted a false story. It was also submitted that the invoices for the car was raised amounting to Rs.6,77,940/- under different heads i.e. car value, logistics, accessories etc. The complainant did not pay anything as advance as he also used to purchase cars for commercial purpose. It was averred that an amount of Rs.6,90,000/- was got reimbursed from the respondent No.2. Further  more it was submitted that the complainant along with one Mr.Vijay Nehra approached the office of answering respondent No.1 and as per the directions of the complainant the delivery of the car was given said to Vijay Nehra and all the documents like delivery note, customer relationship documents, refund etc. were signed by Vijay Nehra. A refund of Rs.24,345/- was also made in the name of son of Vijay Nahra which was duly signed by him with a stipulation that the answering respondent No.1 reserves its right to take legal action against the complainant and Vijay Nehra, if the execution of documents by Vijay Nehra and complainant were declined by the complainant. It was also submitted that an heavy cash discount of Rs. 2,36,050/- approx. was allowed to the complainant on account of vehicle being demo car previously. It was specifically denied that the officials of answering respondent ever snatched the keys of the car and have ever taken it away as alleged. It was submitted that the loan was granted by respondent No.2, so the matter of installment related to respondent No.2. In regard to release of car, it was submitted that when the answering respondent has not repossessed the car so how it could be released by it.Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPand prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      In its written version OP No. 2 & 3 submitted that answering respondentsare a renowned finance company engaged in the business of providing loan facility to the aspiring consumers who intends to buy any vehicle on a easy term loan facility and it was the complainant himself who had approached the respondent company for seeking financial assistance for purchase of Honda Mobilio car and had even provided the quotation of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.11 lacs approx and upon being approached by the complainant, the respondent company had granted financial assistance to the tune of Rs.10,07,500/- to the complainant for purchase of the above said vehicle and the complainant in lieu of the same, had entered into the loan agreement with the respondent company on 14.7.2016 and as per the loan agreement, complainant was bound to make payment of an amount of Rs.23360/- by way of monthly EMI. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, in case of complainant non adhering to the financial discipline, the respondent company were having due and complete authority to repossess the vehicle, in the event of non-payment of installment amount under the loan agreement. That ever since the day of releasing the said loan amount the complainant, has not adhered to the payment schedule and on the date of repossession of the financed vehicle by the respondent company a huge amount was found due and outstanding towards the complainant. This is how he has not come to the court with clean hands and his complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted that it was complainant himself who had approached the respondent company for providing him financial assistance for purchase of Honda Mobilo car and had provided the quotation of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.11 lacs approx and upon being approached by the complainant, the respondent company has granted  him the financial assistance to the tune of Rs.10,07,500/- for purchase of the above said vehicle and the complainant in lieu of the same, had entered into loan agreement with the respondent company on 14.7.2016. As per the loan agreement, the complainant bound to make payment of an amount of Rs.23360/- as monthly EMI and as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, in case of his not adhering to the financial discipline, the respondent company were having due authority to repossess the vehicle. That ever since the day of releasing the loan amount to the complainant, the complainant has not adhered to the premium payment schedule and on the date of repossession of the finance vehicle by the respondent company a huge amount was found due and outstanding towards him in the loan account. It was further submitted that prior to taking of a possession of the vehicle several correspondence were made to the complainant with a request to make payment of the outstanding amount but he malafidely ignored to make the payment of the outstanding dues which constrained OPs No. 2 & 3 to repossess the vehicle in question in a very peaceful way and the respondent company even after in receipt of possession of the vehicle has communicate with the complainant and required him to make payment of the entire outstanding dues and it was further made clear to the complainant that in the event of his not making payment of the due amount, the respondent company will sold the vehicle after assessing its value but the complainant did not come forward so the respondent company with a view to minimize their loss to some extent and after adopting due procedure has sold the vehicle and the said purchaser has deposited the entire amount with the respondent company and the respondent company undertakes to adjust that very amount towards the loan account of the complainant reserving its right to recover the balance amount from the complainant if any. It was submitted that the complainant has approached the respondents and had represented to the respondent for purchase of brand new vehicle and has submitted its respective quotation and the respondent according to the quotation had disbursed an amount of Rs.1007500/- whereas the complainant entered into an agreement with the respondent No.1 for purchase of demo vehicle with a heavy cash discount but if these facts would have come to its knowledge, then the respondent company would not have disbursed any amount over and above of the billing amount of the vehicle. The respondent company reserved its right to take appropriate legal action against the complainant for this fraudulent act and he was sssnot at all entitled for return of the vehicle nor he was entitled to receive any money from the respondent company rather the boot is in the other foot and it was the respondent company who were entitled to receive a huge amount from the complainant in respect of his loan account and prayed that the complaint of the complainant be dismissed

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Hisar has allowed the complaint vide order dated 11.06.2018, which is as under:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to respondent No.1, to pay Rs.24,345/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing the complaint i.e. 16.03.2017 till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- for his harassment and mental agony and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses etc. This order be complied with by the respondent No.1within 30 days, from the date of passing of this order.”

 

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal.

8.      These argumentswere advanced by Sh. Vaibhav Jain, along with Sh.Rohit Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. J.K. Sehrawat, learned counsel for respondent No.1and Sh.S.C. Thatai, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire record of appealas well as original record of the District Commission has also been properly perused and examined.

9.      It is not disputed that complainant purchased mobilio car from the opposite party No.1-appellant in the year 2016.  It is also not disputed that O.P.No.2 and 3 were financer and the vehicle was financed as the behest of the complainant.   It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs.24,345/- was refunded to Vijay Nehra, who was complainant’s friend and was present at the time of delivery of the vehicle and had even signed various documents on behalf of the complainant.   It is also not disputed that the car purchased by complainant used to be a demo car earlier. Perusal of the file shows that the OP No.1 has paid Rs.24,345/- to Mr. Vijay Nehra under some mistake, who was not the complainant or the actual purchaser whereas it was the responsibility of the appellant to have refunded the balance amount to the complainant. If this amount was refunded to Vijay Mehra that was under some misconception but Op No. 1 cannot take the benefit of its own wrongs. The learned District Commission has righty allowed the complaint of the complainant.

10.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, present appeal stands dismissed on merits.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.36,100/- and Rs.16,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be re-imbursed to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

12.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

13.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.    File be consigned to record room.

 

25th  May, 2023                                                                               S. P. Sood                                                                                                                            Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)