BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 446/2003 Filed on 10.11.2003

Dated : 30.06.2010

Complainant:

K. Mohanan, Twinkle Gardens, Kavara, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. P. Rahim)

Opposite parties:

1. Renji Philip, Assistant Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company, Pan African Plaza, 4^th Floor, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Jayachandran, Assistant Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company, Pan African Plaza, 4^th Floor, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd., Tyam House, 28, Rajani Road, Chennai – 600 001.

This O.P having been heard on 16.04.2010, the Forum on 30.06.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant had purchased an used Maruti Omni Van bearing Reg. No. KL 7 N 8953 from the 3^rd opposite party's branch office, Thiruvananthapuram for an amount of Rs. 80,000/- on 05.11.2002. At that time the registered owner of the vehicle was one Sreekumar. Hence the 1^st opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party's Assistant Branch Manager received an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant for the expense of transfering the ownership of the vehicle. But the opposite parties failed to issue R.C Book in the name of the complainant till date. The complainant's repeated demands and requests for the R.C Book was denied by the opposite parties. Later only the complainant knew the fact that there was a dispute regarding the transfer of ownership between Sreekumar and the opposite parties. The complainant states that the act of the opposite party is amounting to unfair trade practice since the opposite parties wilfully sold the vehicle to the complainant which was in dispute. Moreover the complainant had spent Rs. 10,000/- for the maintenance of the vehicle. But he could not use the vehicle without R.C Book. Hence this complaint.

In this case, the 3^rd opposite party, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. only filed version and contested the case. Other opposite parties remained exparte. In the version, 3^rd opposite party submitted that the complainant had informed the 3^rd opposite party that if the 3^rd opposite party had sold the vehicle to him, he shall do all the formalities at the R.T office to register the vehicle in his favour. They further submitted that after the repossession of the said vehicle the complainant had issued a notice to the above said Sreekumar and he did not come to clear the dues and repossess his vehicle within the period of one month. As per the stipulations in the hire purchase agreement, if the hirer does not turn up within one month of notice the 3^rd opposite party is competent to transfer the vehicle to a third person. Accordingly they sold the vehicle to the complainant along with all the documents of the said vehicle for obtaining a fresh R.C Book. The 3^rd opposite party denied the statement of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party received an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant to transfer the vehicle in favour of the complainant without issuing any receipt. They further stated that they never promised the complainant that they will take steps for fresh R.C Book in favour of the complainant. The 3^rd opposite party further stated that the above said Sreekumar had filed certain objections regarding the transfer of the R.C Book in favour of the complainant and the complainant has not done anything to remove the said objections and he is intentionally trying to shift the burden upon the opposite parties. The complainant is still using the said vehicle. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties.

In this case complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has produced 3 documents. The documents filed by the complainant are marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. The 3^rd opposite party produced judgement dated 11.09.2006 of the Hon'ble High court in O.P. No. 36849/2002.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant in this case had purchased the vehicle on 05.11.2002. But he could not use the vehicle without R.C Book till date. According to the complainant, he purchased the vehicle on the assurance of the opposite parties that they will transfer the ownership in his favour and they will issue the R.C book to him. On that assurance he had also spent Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance work of the vehicle. But the opposite parties failed to transfer the ownership in favour of the complainant till date. The vehicle which had sold to the complainant was repossessed from one Sreekumar who was the hirer of the 3^rd opposite party. There was a litigation pending between the above said Sreekumar and the opposite parties. For that reason the opposite parties could not transfer the ownership in favour of the complainant. But the opposite parties did not disclose the matter to the complainant and thereby cheated the complainant. The complainant has caused irreparable loss and hardship due to the act of the opposite parties. Without R.C Book the complainant could not use the vehicle, he has kept the vehicle idle in his car shed.

To prove his contentions, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and examined him as PW1. The opposite parties did not turn up to cross examine the complainant. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the copy of receipt of the payment of Rs. 65,000/- to the opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of receipt of payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite parties on 05.11.2002. Ext. P3 is the copy of sale letter. Through these documents the complainant has proved that he had paid Rs. 80,000/- to the opposite parties for purchasing the vehicle. But he cannot use the car till date.

In this case the 3^rd opposite party produced the judgement in O.P. No. 36849 of 2002 dated 11.09.2006 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. That O.P was filed by Sreekumar against the Registering Authorities and the Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. In that O.P the petitioner Sreekumar prayed for not issuing the fresh Registration Certificate in favour of the Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the O.P and directed the Registering Authorities to consider the objection of the petitioner while passing final orders. From this document we assume that there was litigation about the vehicle at the time of selling the vehicle to the complainant. From this document we can also understand that till 11.09.2006 the case was pending and not transferred the ownership in favour of the complainant by the opposite parties. In these circumstance it is the duty of the opposite parties to refund the amount to the complainant and repossess the vehicle. The opposite parties can transfer the ownership of the vehicle after the High Court order dated 11.09.2006. As per the High Court Order the opposite parties can transfer the registration certificate in favour of the complainant. But the opposite parties did not do so. In this case the complainant had spent Rs. 80,000/- to purchase the vehicle. But he could not use the vehicle till date. We can understand the mental agony, hardships and financial loss sustained by the complainant. Opposite parties are liable to compensate for that difficulty. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the 3^rd opposite party and other opposite parties in their official capacity are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 80,000/- with 9% annual interest from 05.11.2002 till the date of realization to the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant. After the compliance of the order the opposite parties shall have the right to take the vehicle (KL 7 N 8953 Maruti Omni Van) from the custody of the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Otherwise 12% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount from the date of order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of June 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 446/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - K. Mohanan

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of receipt of payment of Rs. 65,000/- to opposite party

P2 - Copy of receipt of payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite

party on 05.11.2002.

P3 - Copy of sale letter.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb