Date of Filing: 23.01.2008 Date of Order: 06.06.2008 BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 6th DAY OF JUNE 2008 PRESENT Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President Smt.C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member COMPLAINT NO: 201 OF 2008 Sri. S. Muthu Ramalingam, No. 136/2, K.B. Nagar, 8th Main Road, Pipe Line West, BANGALORE 560 026. COMPLAINANT - V/S - M/s. Sakthi Finance Limited, No.204, 2nd Floor, Cadia Arcade, No. 92, Infantry Road, BANGALORE 560 001. .....OPPOSITE PARTY ORDER This complaint is filed claiming refund of the amount paid to the opposite party on the following grounds :- 2. The complainant purchased the vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MA-5544 from the opposite party for Rs.65,000/- and obtained receipt. He also paid Rs.6,000/- as commission to the opposite party and spent Rs.30,000/- for repairs to the vehicle and thus he spent Rs.1,01,000/- for the said vehicle. The opposite party had failed to deliver the RC, Delivery Challans, first Party Insurance and other documents pertaining to the vehicle. The opposite party dragged the matter, whenever he approached them and finally asked him to collect the documents from its Head Office at Coimbatore. Thereafter, he was informed that they have no documents pertaining to the vehicle. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant. 2. In the version the contention of the opposite party is as under:- It is doing business in Hire-purchase and leasing. It lends Financial Assistance for purchase of Vehicles. If the hirer commits default in repayment of the amount barrowed, it repossesses the Vehicle and sells the same in public auction. While repossessing the Vehicle the hirer will not usually hand over the documents to the Company. Therefore, the Vehicle will be sold without any documents making it clear to the buyer that he should obtain fresh Registration Certificate from the RTO Authorities. The Vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MA-5544 was covered under Hire-purchase Agreement with the opposite party and the same was repossessed on 21.05.2007 due to default committed by the hirer. The hirer did not surrender the RC and other documents pertaining to the Vehicle. When the said Vehicle was proposed to be sold in public auction, the complainant came forward to purchase the same. The complainant was informed that the registered owner has not surrendered the original RC and therefore he should arrange to get fresh RC. As per letter dated: 12.07.2007 the complainant also agreed for that condition and accordingly the Vehicle was sold to him for Rs.65,000/- and was handed over to the complainant on 12.07.2007. It is also issued Form No.36 as requested by the complainant. Therefore, it is the duty of the complainant to get the necessary documents from the concerned RTO. On these grounds the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. We have heard the arguments on both sides. 4. The points for consideration are:- (a) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ? (b) Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint ? 5. Our finding to the above points is in the negative for the following :- REASONS 6. The fact that the complainant purchased Vehicle bearing No.KA-02-MA-5544 from the opposite party for Rs.65,000/- is not disputed. According, to the opposite party the said Vehicle was repossessed from a hirer who committed default in repayment of the loan and the Vehicle and was sold in public auction. It is the contention of the opposite party that since the hirer had not surrendered the documents pertaining to the Vehicle the complainant was informed to arrange himself for the necessary registration documents from the RTO Authorities and agreeing to those conditions, as per the letter dated: 12.07.2007 the complainant purchased the Vehicle and received its possession. It is also contended by the opposite party that as requested by the complainant, it has also issued Form No.36 to facilitate him to obtain necessary registration documents from the concerned RTO Authorities. The fact that the opposite party issued Form No.36 is not denied by the complainant. The opposite party has also produced the letter dated: 12.07.2007 stated to have been given by the complainant. In this letter the complainant has expressed his willingness to purchase the Vehicle in as-is-where is condition for Rs.65,000/- and to get the FRC namely fresh Registration Certificate at his risk and costs. Therefore, according to this letter the complainant has undertaken to get fresh Registration Certificate for the Vehicle at his risk and cost. If that is so, the complainant cannot blame the opposite party for having not delivered the documents pertaining to the Vehicle. When in the letter dated: 12.07.2007 the complainant has undertaken to get fresh RC it goes to indicate that on the date of purchase the complainant was well aware that the opposite party is not in a possession of the documents pertaining to the Vehicle. In these circumstances the non-delivery of the documents will not amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. When opposite party claims to have delivered Form No.36, it is for the complainant to get fresh Registration Certificate from the concerned authorities on the basis of Form No.36 issued by the opposite party. Thus we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore hold that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, we pass the following :- ORDER 7. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 6th DAY OF JUNE - 2008. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
