CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present

Smt. Bindhu M Thomas, President (I/C)

 Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

CC No. 304/2010

Monday, the 27^th    day of August, 2012.

 

Petitioner                                              :           Nogi George,

Kachiramattam)

Opposite parties                                   :     1)   Shebu John,

2)        Popular Motor Corporation

Ernakulam, Edappally

reptd. by its Managing Partner.

3)        Mr. Chacko N.C

Nedumthundathil House,

Koruthadu P.O

Mundakkayam, Kanjirappally.

4)        M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.,

Thadikaran Centre, 4^th Floor,

Palarivattom P.O, Kochi – 25.

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, President (I/C)

The second opposite party is the dealer of used car in the name and style “Hyundai Advantage Popular” .The first opposite party is the show room in charge of second opposite party at Kottayam. The second opposite party is doing business of used car through the show room at Kottayam. The complainant agreed to purchase a Maruthi 800 car bearing register No. KL Q 4659 from the opposite parties.   It is a used car. The complainant and the

-2-

 first opposite party mutually agreed with price of the said car as Rs. 1,17,000/- and the first opposite party received Rs. 1,500/- on 20..8..2010 as advance from the sale price. The first opposite party executed the advance sale agreement cum receipt on 20..8..2010. The complainant agreed to purchase the said car on the basis of assurance made by the first opposite party that at the time of receiving the balance amount of Rs. 1,15,500/- the said car would be delivered to the complainant after changing the previous owner’s name from the RC book and other connected documents. On the basis of the said assurance the complainant paid balance amount of Rs. 1,15,500 on 26..8..2008 and executed sale letter on the very same day. But the opposite party had not handed over the original RC book to the complainant as agreed on 20..8..2010. The first and second opposite parties gave only the photo copy of RC book where in the name of the previous owner was not changed. While asking about this the first opposite party agreed to change the name within 7 days but has not done anything. The opposite parties did not give the RC book even after repeated requests. There after on25..11..2010 the first opposite party endorsed on the back side of the RC book that the original RC book and insurance paper are with the first opposite party. Hence the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant claimed the original RC book after changing the previous owner’s name along with compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 10,000/-. 

 

-3-

called absent and was set ex-parte. Opposite party 1, 2 and 4 filed their version. Version of opposite party 1 and 2 came with the following main contentions.

1)                  This complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts of the case.

2)                  First opposite party Shri. Shibu John is only an employee of the second opposite party who has been impleaded in personal capacity which is illegal and the first opposite party being an employee has no personal liability.

3)                  The Maruthi 800 vehicle bearing registration No. KL 5 Q 4659 is purchased by the second opposite party from Mr. Chacko NC, Nedumthundathil House, Koruthodu P.O. At the time of purchase the vehicle was hypothecated to the 4^th opposite party. Second opposite party had verified the finance amount and as directed by the 4^th opposite party paid the entire outstanding loan amount due in the finance account Rs. 41,000/- as per receipt with APR No. 36719697634 Dtd5..8..2010 on behalf of the owner of the vehicle Sri. Chacko N.C. Hence the 4^th opposite party ought to have issued NOC for terminating the hypothecation and also for the transferring the ownership in the name of transferee of the vehicle. But for reasons best known the 4^th opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party they are not co operating with the second opposite party for issuing the NOC and transferring the ownership of the vehicle in the RC records in the name of the complainant. 

 

-4-

The first and second opposite parties contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part.   Hence the first and second opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to them.

The 4^th opposite party filed version with the following main contentions.

1)                  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

2)                  There is no deficiency in service or any other fault on this opposite party since there is no connection or privity of contract between either the complainant or any other opposite parties in respect of the so-called sale of the vehicle. Moreover it is illegal and is a violation of the loan agreement between the 3^rd opposite party and 4^th opposite party .

3)                  This complaint is filed by the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party with the bad intention to avoid payment of the balance loan amount due from the 3^rd opposite party to this opposite party.

4)                  3^rd opposite party availed a vehicle loan for the car bearing No. KL 05 Q 4659 from the 4^th opposite party on 11..12..2007. He was not regular in paying EMI’s of the loan and committed default.      13 Cheques issued by the 3^rd opposite party were dishonored.    So over due charges accumulated and he did not clear it. Due to this the company cannot close the loan amount and still it is to be closed by the 3^rd opposite party by paying the balance loan amount. 

5)                  As on 24..3..2010 the 3^rd opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 9182/- to this opposite party without paying that amount and other charges till this date this opposite party is not liable to give NOC to clear

-5-

the hypothecation on the vehicle to transfer the ownership. It is not correct to say that the second opposite party has verified with this opposite party and paid the entire finance amount to this opposite party by receipt dtd: 5..8..2010. It is also denied that the 4^th opposite party is not co-operating for the transferring ownership of the vehicle.

6)                  This opposite party need not be a party to this case since there is no agreement between this opposite party and the complainant or any other opposite parties.

Hence the 4^th opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to them. 

Points for considerations are:

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by complainant and 4^th

opposite party. Ext. A1 to A6 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of 4^th opposite party.

 

-6-

and another receipt copy bearing No. 383 for Rs. 1,50,500/- which is marked as Ext. A3. The complainant produced    the vehicle sale agreement copy which is marked as Ext. A2. The complainant submitted that he purchased the used car believing the assurances of the   first and second opposite parties that the disputed car will be delivered after changing the previous owners name from the RC book and other connected documents. The complainant further submitted that the first and second opposite parties have not changed the previous owner’s name in the RC book and have not given the original RC book and the insurance paper to him till now. It was averred by the complainant that due to the said negligent act of the opposite parties he had   suffered lot of harassments on many occasions of inspection by the police and motor vehicle department persons. Where as the first and second opposite parties contented that they had verified the finance   amount with the 4^th opposite party and paid the entire outstanding loan amount due in the finance account Rs. 41,000/- as per receipt with APR No. 36719697634 Dtd: 5..8..2010. But the 4^th opposite party countered the said contention and stated that the second opposite party has not verified anything with the 4^th opposite party and has not paid the entire outstanding finance account to the 4^th opposite party. The complainant filed the original special invitation by the first and second opposite party and it is marked as Ext. A6. In Ext. A6,   eight benefits are listed for the used car buyers. From the said benefits the seventh benefit is “easy and trouble free dealings”. From    the evidence on record it is seen that the complainant   purchased the used car lured by the aforementioned Ext. A6,   special invitation but was cheated with trouble some and un easy dealings. Counsel for the first and second opposite parties submitted that it is the duty of the complainant to clear all the dues with the 4^th opposite party and change the owners

-7-

name in the RC book. But no scrap of paper is placed by the first and second opposite parties to prove that it is the duty of the complainant to change the prior owner’s name in the RC book. In Ext. A2 vehicle sale agreement it is clearly stated that for all the police cases and other check reports till 26..8..2010 the first and second opposite parties will be liable.    Here the alleged vehicle was purchased by the first and second opposite parties from the 3^rd opposite party before the Ext. A2 sale agreement. First and second opposite parties had the bounden duty to verify whether the 3^rd opposite party is having any dues with the 4^th opposite party or any other liability with any one and only after such verification they ought to have kept the said car for sale. But here the first and second opposite parties utterly failed to make such verification and kept the car having liability with the 4^th opposite party for the sale. This is a clear case of unfair trade practice committed by the second opposite party. Further, more the second opposite party failed to change the previous owners name in the RC book and to issue the original RC book and other documents to the complainant till date. This proves that the first and second opposite parties are deficient in their service also. In our view what had happened would have definitely caused mental agony, monetory loss and tension to the complainant Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

 

 

-8-

Shri. Shebu John is only an employee of second opposite party and has no personal liability. Hence we are of the view that the second opposite party is liable to compensate   the losses suffered by the complainant.

Hence the complaint is ordered as follows:

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, President (I/C)                       Sd/-    

 

Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member                                 Sd/-

 

 

Ext. A1:            Copy of advance sale agreement cum receipt

Ext. A2:            Copy of vehicle sale agreement

Ext. A3:            Copy of receipt for Rs. 1,15,500/-

Ext. A4:            Copy of RC book.

Ext. A5:            Copy of the guarantee letter issued by the first opposite party.

Ext. A6:            Original special . invitation card.

 

Ext. B1:            Copy of personal loan agreement

Ext. B2:            Copy of statement of account.

 

By Order,

 

 

 

Senior Superintendent