Date of filing:      05.10.2019

                                                                                                                                   Date of disposal:09.01.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                    .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN.M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                         ....MEMBER-II

 

RBT/CC. No.41/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 09th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

(CC.No.02/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

Mr.P.Ashok, S/o.Ponnusamy,

No.15, 14th Street, Padiputhu Nagar,

Chennai 600 101.                                                                                     ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

S.R.Motots, Rep. by its Proprietor,

Shop No.2/15, Radial House,

Ambattur Estate Road, Mogappair Road,

Collector Nagar, TVS Colony,

Anna Nagar West Extension, 

Chennai 600 101.                                                                             .......Opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                   :  M/s.V.Vinoth Kumar, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                               :   M/s.E.Maharajan, Advocate.

                         

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.02/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.41/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 19.12.2022 and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.MURUGAN. MEMBER-II

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in collecting the loan amount along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to return the R.C.Book and No Due Certificate for vehicle bearing Registration No.TN.02 BE 2219 and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceeding to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The Complainant who intend to purchase a motor cycle Model Yamaha  Z Ray and approached the Opposite Party on finance & hypothecation system for an amount of Rs.30,500/- and the payment on equated monthly instalment basis @ 18 instalments of Rs.2,840/- pm from April 2016.  The interest payable for the loan would be of 18% per annum and the RC Book shall be retained by the financer that is the Opposite Party as security on the Vehicle Loan.  The Opposite Party has collected a total No. of 13 cheques favouring him and the cheques were issued by the Complainant’s sister since the Complainant run out of cheques at that time. The Registration of the vehicle was also done and proper Registration number bearing TN02BE2219 obtained by the seller of the vehicle. It is stated by the Complainant that he has paid an amount of Rs.28,500/- to the Opposite Party as initial down payment. The complainant in his complaint states that he has issued 13 cheques with equated amount of Rs.2480/- without mentioning the date and also made 5 instalments through cash payment with various dates in the year 2017.   The Complainant put forth that there are three cheques were dishonoured due to the fault act of Opposite Party but he could able make the payment then and there and no due kept pending.  It is put forth that the entire loan account has been closed and when the Complainant requested for the RC Book of the vehicle, the Opposite Party has demanded an amount of Rs.6,000/- as arrear to be settled on the loan which is fault and mala fide in nature. The Complainant has issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party in this regard and no reply received from Opposite Party.  Therefore, the Complainant preferred this complaint before this Commission. The complainant pray for the return of RC and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered and legal cost.

Crux of defence made by the opposite party:-

On the other hand, the Opposite Party submits their version on the issue as they are dealer cum financier in the business of vehicle in the name & style of SR Motors and Siddarth Finance. The Complainant has approached them for purchasing of Yamaha Z Ray bike in 2016 and the total cost of the vehicle was Rs.66,800/- of which an amount of Rs.25,450/- was paid by the buyer (Complainant) as down payment and an amount of Rs.38000/- was as loan against the vehicle an hypothecation. The hypothecation agreement date 03.03.2016 was duly signed and accepted by both the parties. As per agreement the EMI has to be paid by cheques and it is alleged by the Opposite Party that the buyer (Complainant) never kept the promise of honouring the cheque on time and having the debit of dishonouring by not providing sufficient fund in account. The dishonoured cheques attract a Bank charge of Rs.250/- and apart from this there is due on hire purchase and certain accessories due amounting to Rs.9293/- payable by the buyer (Complainant) as per the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party says that they are entitled to retain the document (RC) until the entire dues are settled and vehemently denies any deficiency  in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the Complainant. 

The complainant had filed proof affidavit and submitted documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked on their side.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 was marked on their side. 

Points for consideration:

Whether the act of opposite party in collecting the EMI amount and further due amounts to deficiency in service and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point:1

On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;

Bank Pass Book of the complainant was marked as Ex.A1;

Receipts issued by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A2;

RC Book was marked as Ex.A3;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 20.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A4;

On the side of opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their contention;

Proforma Invoice dated 03.03.2016 was marked as Ex.B1;

Hire purchase agreement dated 03.03.2016 was marked as Ex.B2;

Vehicle deliver report dated 03.03.2016 was marked as Ex.B3;

Copy of EMI due details was marked as Ex.B4;

Bank Pass Book Entries was marked as Ex.B5;

 The Complainant has entered in to an agreement on purchase and hypothecation of the vehicle and agreed to pay in equated monthly instalment but defaulted regularly.  Also the Complainant has not produced the final bill of the vehicle to ascertain the value of the vehicle. The RC of the vehicle does have the endorsement of the hire purchase as per the hypothecation agreement and there are only 3 cash receipts submitted in the complaint. Whereas the Complainant states that he has paid 5 cash payment, which is not proved.

On the other side, the Opposite Party has produced only the Proforma invoice dated 03.03.2016 and again not the final bill. The Opposite party has submitted the hire purchases agreement executed between Siddarth Finance and the Complainant in which second schedule clearly indicates the due date of instalment to be paid and actual date of receipt of instalment. There is invariably delay payment of each and every instalment and the clause of levying interest for belated instalment does apply here.

Therefore it is evident on the fact and documents produced before this Commission that the accepted clause of honouring the cheque failed on the face of the Complainant. Therefore, the subject clause of levying interest on the dishonoured cheques/belated payment by the Opposite Party stands good. Also, when the buyer / borrower execute an agreement, the clause of interest also borne by the buyer and therefore the demand of the seller / financier has to be cleared by the buyer / borrower. In short, the claim of the Complainant does not find good.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite party.

Point No.2:-

As we have held above that the complainant failed to prove that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, he is not entitled any relief from the opposite party.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to Cost. 

Dictated by the Member II to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member II and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 09th day of January 2023.

 

     Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-

  MEMBER-II                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

 

Ex.A1 .................. Bank Pass Book of the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A2 ................ Receipt issued by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A3 ................ RC Book. Xerox

Ex.A4 20.02.2018 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox

 

List of document filed by the Opposite party:-

 

 

    Ex.B1 03.03.2016 Proforma Invoice. Xerox

Ex.B2 03.03.2016 Hire Purchase Agreement. Xerox

Ex.B3 03.03.2016 Vehicle Delivery Note. Xerox

Ex.B4 ............... Copy of EMI due. Xerox

Ex.B5 ............... Bank Pass Book entries. Xerox

 

 

 

   Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                    PRESIDENT