Shri Suresh Saibaba Automobiles TVS Moped & TVS Motors, The Manager, Raghavendra Auto Enterprises, M/s. TVS Finance & Service Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of C.P. Act by complainant against Respondents 1 to 3. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant Basappa is an employee at P.H.C. Turvihal village of Sindhanor Taluka. The Respondent NO.1 Saibaba Automobiles, T.V.S. Motor is sub-dealer cum Authorized service Center of TVS Moped and Suzuki Bicycles at Sindhanoor. Respondent NO-2 Manager Raghavendra Auto Enterprises is a dealer for said Motor Company to Raichur district. Respondent NO-3 M/s. TVS Finance and service limited Chennai is the financier and service limited of said company. As the complainant was in need of Motor cycle without gear he approached Respondent NO-1 for purchasing TVS excel HD two-wheeler on hire purchase scheme (installment Basis). The Respondent No-1 agreed for providing such facility from Respondent NO-3 through Respondent NO-2. Accordingly the complainant entered into an Agreement No. KA-02-600107 dated 31-05-02 with Respondent NO-3 for purchasing the TVS excel-HD for Rs. 19,500/- Repayment Installment was fixed at Rs. 1,361/- per month and purchased said vehicle from Respondent No-1 vide Invlice No. 283 dated 31-05-02 by executing hire purchasing agreement for payment of vehicle price in (18) installments of @ Rs. 1,361/- each. The Registration number of vehicle is KA-36-J-9078. As per agreement with Respondent NO-3. The complainant has paid all (18) installments regularly for which Respondent NO-3 has passed (10) Receipts and Respondent NO-1 has passed remaining (8) receipts. In-spite of payment all installment, the Respondents have not taken any steps for discharging from Hypothecation, to issue No Due Certificate and to return RC book to the complainant by intimating the same to R.T.O. Raichur for effecting necessary entries in RC book. Even after repeated/continuous persuasion on Phone on 18-12-03 all the Respondents remained deaf year to his request. So he got issue a legal notice dated 26-08-04 for which Respondent NO-3 through letter dated 16-09-04 requested for furnishing Xerox copies of receipts of payment installments No. 11 to 18 (Paid to Respondent NO.1). The complainant furnished the same through letter dated 12-10-04 and copy of which was forwarded to Respondent NO-2. Even prior this letter, the Respondent NO-1 had intimated Respondent 3 about the clearness of all the dues by this complainant vide letter dated 23-09-04. In spite of that, Respondent NO-3 has not taken any steps for resolving the dispute by issuing No Due Certificate. Discharge letter of hypothecation and return of R.C. book intimating R.T.O. Raichur for effecting necessary entries of discharge of hypothecation. So failures of which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Respondent 3 even after fulfilling terms and condition of agreement. Hence for all these reasons complainant has sought for direction to Respondent NO-3 to issue No Due Certificate, issuance of letter of discharge of hypothecation to return R.C. book intimating the R.T.O. Raichur for effecting necessary entries in the R.C. records and books for awarding of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment along with Rs. 2,500/- towards cost of proceedings. 2. In response to service of notice Respondent NO 2 & 3 remained absent when called out on 30-03-05 hence O.Ps 2 & 3 are set ex-parte. O.P.3 in response to paper publication of notice of his appearance in Raichur Vani Kannada Daily paper dated 29-11-05, remained absent when called out so O.P. 3 is also set ex-parte. 3. During the course of ex-parte hearing the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit as his evidence and has got marked as many as (22) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-22. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and perused original documents. 4. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not issuing No Due Certificate, discharge letter of hypothecation and return of R.C. book on payment of (18) installment, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainants entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is the case of the complainant and his affidavit/evidence that he has purchased TVS excel HD from the Respondent NO-1 through Respondents No. 2 & 3 vide agreement NO. KA-02-600107 dated 31-05-02 and the vehicle was registered in RTO Raichur bearing No. KA-36-J-9078. As per agreement with Respondent NO-3 he has paid all (18) monthly installment at the rate of Rs. 1,361/- regularly for which Respondent NO-3 has passed (10) receipts and Respondent NO-1 has passed remaining (8) receipt regarding payment of 18 installments. In spite of payment all installment, the Respondents have not issued No Due Certificate. Letter of discharge from hypothecation and not return RC book intimating the RTO Raichur for effecting necessary entries, so he got issue legal notice dated 26-08-04 though his lawyer. For which Respondent 3 through letter dated 16-09-04 requested for furnishing Xerox copies of receipts of payment of installments Nos. 11 to 18 paid to the Respondent No-1. Accordingly complainant has furnished all Xerox copies of Receipts, through his reply leter dated 12-10-04. Even earlier to this letter, Respondent NO-2 had intimated Respondent NO-3 about clearance of all the dues by the complainant vide letter dated 23-09-04. In spite of it, Respondent NO-3 has not taken any steps for issuing No Due Certificate, Letter of discharge of Hypothecation and not returned the RC book by intimating RTO for effecting necessary entries about discharge of Hypothecation. The complainant has produced original Receipts of payment of (18) installment at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16. Ex.P-1 Receipt No. 136139 shows payment of first and second installments amount of Rs. 2,722/- at the rate of Rs. 1,361/-. Similarly Ex.P-2 is the Receipt for payment of 3rd & 4th installment of Rs. 2,722/-. Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-16 are the payment of single installments each from 5th installment to 18th installment. The first (8) Receipts at Ex.P-1 to P-8 comprising (10) installment are issued by Haritha Finance Limited and the Receipts at Ex.P-9 to P-16 comprising (8) instllments are issued by Sri Saibaba Automobiles & TVS Motors, Sindhanoor [Respondent No-1] Ex.P.17 is the Office Copy of the legal notice dt. 26-08-04 got issued by the complainant to M/s. Haritha Finance Ltd., Chennai and to the other three Respondents of this case. In this legal notice at Para-3 it is made to known that M/s. Haritha Finance Ltd., is now converted as M/s. TVS Finance Service Ltd., [Respondent No.3]. Through this letter the complainant had called upon the Respondents to issue No Due Certificate. Release of Hypothecation, Return of R.C. book to the complainant. Ex.P-19 is the reply letter dated 16-09-04 issued by M/s. TVS Finance and service Ltd., [Respondent No-3] addressed to Sri Shridhar Kulkarni, Advocate for the complainant asking the complainant to furnish Receipts of payment of installments Nos. 11 to 18 issued by Sri Suresh, Manager TVS Moped and TVS Suzuki Sindhanoor to settle the accounts. Ex.P-20 is the reply letter dated 12-10-04 by Sri Sridhar Kulkarni Advocate for complainant issued to Respondent NO-3 M/s. TVS Finance & Service Ltd., Chennai. Through this letter they sent Xerox copies of (8) Receipts of installments No. 11 to 18 as asked for along with the copy of letter of Respondent NO-2- Manager Raghavendra Auto Enterprise Raichur dated 23-09-04 intimating the Respondent No-3-TVS Finance and service regarding full payment all installments by the complainant and requested to return of RC book etc., to the complainant. Ex.P-21 is the copy of letter of Raghavendra Auto Enterprises, dated 23-09-04 issued to Respondent NO-3 M/s. TVS Finance & service Ltd., Chennai. So from a close perusal of material documents at Ex.P-1 to P-16, 17, 19 , 20 & 21 as discussed above, it amply shows payment all (18) installments by the complainant. Even the Respondent NO-2 Raghavendra Auto Enterprises vide Letter dated 23-09-04 at Ex.P-21 addressed to Respondent NO-3 has intimated that the complainant/customer has already paid full installments and requested for return of R.C. book etc., This in-turn strengthen the contention of the complainant regarding payment of all (18) installments. Such being the case the non issuance of No Due Certificate Release letter of Hypothecation and RC book etc., in-spite of issuance of copies of all (18) receipt of installments to the Respondent No-3 vide letter dated 12-12-04 in reply to their letter dated 16-09-04, it shows that Respondents NO-3 has not acted upon and so it amounts to deficiency in service by the Respondents. The fact that all the three Respondents remained absent in spite of service of notice issued by this Forum itself shows that the Respondents have no defence to dispute or discard the claim of the complainant. This in-turn further shows deficiency in service by the Respondents as alleged. Hence we hold complainant has proved in service by the Respondents, there by entitle to the No Due Certificate letter of discharge of Hypothecation and return of RC book. This our view is supported by the decision of Honble National Commission reported in 2003 [1] CPR Page-320 Head note, which reads as under:- Banking service-Title documents of complainant kept as security not returned despite repayment of bank loan-compensation claim-During course of proceedings before State Commission documents were returned-State Commission dismissed complaint holding that though Bank was deficient in service but complainant did not suffer any loss-Appeal-Once there was deficiency in service, complainant should have been compensated even though he did not suffer any loss-Complainant had pleaded that if needed title documents to avail loan from other bank to complete construction of their complex. It was gross deficiency in service-Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded with interest at 12% p.a. and cost Rs. 10,000/- Hence for all these reasons Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO:-2 7. The complaint has sought for direction to issue No Due Certificate letter of discharge of Hypothecation, return of RC book in affecting necessary entries from RTO Raichur, and for Rs. 10,000/- compensation for mental harassment and for Rs. 2,500/- towards cost. In view of our discussion Point No-1 holding deficiency in service by the Respondent NO-3. The claimant is entitle for the relief with global compensation of Rs. 8,000/- including cost in the result we pass following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent NO-3 is directed to issue No Due Certificate letter of discharge of Hypothecation and to return R.C. Book by intimating the RTO Raichur for effecting necessary entries in the R.C. Book and to pay a global compensation of Rs. 8,000/- including cost. The Respondent NO-3 shall comply this order within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-12-06 ) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Pampannagouda, Member District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Kavita Patil, Member. District Forum-Raichur
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
