Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/135/2019

P. Sivashankar, And another. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram City Finance & Chits Ltd, And 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. P. Venugopal

25 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                        PRESIDENT

                  THIRU.S. KARUPPIAH,                                                       JUDICIAL MEMBER

                  THIRU. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                       MEMBER                                     

 

F.A.No.135/2019

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.42/2007, dated 25.03.2019 on the file of the District Commission, Cuddalore. 

 

WEDNESDAY, THE 25^th DAY OF MAY 2022.

1.    P. Sivashankar,

       S/o. Sivaperumal,

       No.199, West Street,

       Muthukrishnapuram,

       Panruti Taluk,                                                              

 

2.     P. Mohanraj,

        S/o. Sivaperumal,

        No.199, West Street,

        Muthukrishnapuram,

        Panruti Taluk.                                                       Appellants/Complainants

                                      

                 Vs

1.     Shriram City Finance & Chits Ltd.,

        Rengapillai Street,

        Pondicherry.  

 

2.     Shriram City Finance & Chits Ltd.,

        No.1, Sambandam Street,

        G.N. Chetty Road,

        T. Nagar, Chennai – 17. 

 

3.     The Regional Transport Officers,

        Cuddalore.                                                           Respondents/Opposite parties 

 

Counsel for the Appellants/Complainants    :  M/s. P.  Venugopal,  Advocate.    

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2/

   Opposite parties 1 & 2                           :  M/s. K.V. Ananthakrishnan, Advocate..                                                                                       

For the Respondenrt-3/opposite party-3               :- Appeared party-in-person.

 

       This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 22.03.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

 THIRU. S. KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.    

 

1.       This appeal  has been filed under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Cuddalore passed in C.C.No.42/2007, dated 25.03.2019,  dismissing the complaint filed by the appellants herein.   

2.       For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuddalore. (In short, “District Commission”).              

3         The unfortunate complainants who suffered by dismissal of their complaint are the appellants herein.  The case projected before the District Commission by the complainants is as follows; -  The 1^st complainant intended to purchase a used vehicle viz., Toyota Qualis bearing registration No.TN-07-V-3857 belonged to one V. Raguraman.  To purchase the vehicle as the complainants were in need of money, they approached the 1^st opposite party for loan.  The 2^nd opposite party is the Branch Office of the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd complainant stood as guarantor for the above said loan availed by the complainants.   Actually, the complainants intended to avail only a sum of Rs.1, 50,000/- towards the loan for which they had given cheque leaves of the 2^nd complainant towards the EMIs (Equated Monthly Installments).  The complainants did not avail the loan and they purchased the vehicle only from their own money. But, the opposite parties without paying any amount created fake documents as if the complainants availed a loan of Rs.2,25,000/- and they paid the loan amount to one Krishnamoorthy who is a unknown person to the complainants.  So, the complainants informed the bank not to honour the cheques.  Thereafter, the complainants issued a notice to the opposite parties and on receipt of the said notice,  the opposite parties sent a reply with false allegations.  Hence, a complaint was filed by the complainants before the District Consumer Commission praying for a direction to the opposite parties to hand over all the documents executed by the complainants and further requested to direct them to return of original R.C. Book without any hypothecation endorsement to the complainants.   

4.          Resisting the complaint, the 1^st opposite party filed a written version which was adopted by the 2^nd opposite party.  In the written version, the opposite parties 1 & 2  contended  inter alia that the complainants approached these opposite parties for hypothecation loan to purchase a vehicle and subsequently they also executed due documents and the loan amount was directly sent to the agency doing car selling business and though the complainants purchased the vehicle, they failed to discharge the loan and in order to evade the payment they have filed this instant vexatious complaint and hence it is liable to be dismissed. 

5.           The 3^rd opposite party also filed an independent written version contending inter alia that 3rd opposite party is neither a necessary nor did a proper party in the complaint and as there is no specific allegation against the 3^rd opposite party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. If any application received in a proper manner in connection with Transfer of ownership/Hire purchase Agreement/Hire Purchase Termination etc., necessary entries would be made in the Registration Certificate of the particular vehicle and connected “ A “ Register maintained in the Regional Transport Office.  There is no dispute between the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed as against the 3^rd opposite party.     

6.      The District Commission after receiving the affidavits and exhibits and on perusing the same passed a detailed order dismissing the complaint against which the complainants has preferred this appeal stating that the District Commission failed to appreciate the facts and documents produced by the complainants and also failed to note that the amount was not really paid to the complainants.   

7.         The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that all the facts have been narrated in the complaint as well as in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.

8.          The points for consideration are

            (1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite

                   parties as alleged by the complainants?   

            (2)   Whether the order of dismissal passed by the District Commission is

                   legally sustainable?  

9.   Points 1 & 2:- It is the admitted fact of both sides that the complainants purchased a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-07-V-3857 Toyoto Qualis van.  The previous owner of the vehicle, as seen from Exhibit A1 as well as in Ex B12 which is the R.C. book of the said vehicle stands in the name of one Mr. Raguraman.  Neither the above said Raguraman was a party to the proceedings nor did the complainants produced any affidavit from the above said owner.  It is not proved before the District Commission as well as before this Commission whether the complainants really purchased the vehicle directly from the previous owner or through an agent by name Krishanmoorthy as alleged by the opposite parties.   Normally, the used cars are sold by the owner through some agency and the possibility of purchasing the disputed vehicle through one used car selling agency is quite probable in this case. The further case of the complainants is that they originally sought for money to purchase the vehicle and they approached the opposite party for a loan of Rs.1,50,000/-.   But, in the complaint, in para-8, in the bottom 2 lines, it has been averred by the complainants that “though 1^st complainant applied for loan, later he made cash payment to the vendor. No amount is due by him”.  

10.     The above sentences are contrary in nature.  If the complainants did not avail any loan and they had paid their own money for purchasing the vehicle, there is no necessity for them to hand over the R.C. Book for hypothecation endorsement by the opposite parties.  Moreover, if they did not avail any loan there is no necessity for them to use the word “no due “in the subsequent sentences.  So, from the above averments, it could be easily understood that the vehicle was purchased by the complainants only by availing loan from the opposite parties.  The opposite parties filed the application, quotation and other documents to show that there was a money transaction between the complainants and the opposite parties.  From the documents, we find that the relationship between the parties is only that of debtor and creditor and the appellants/complainants failed to establish the relationship of consumer and the service provider in this case.

11.        Even the Commission again considered the averments of the complainants that they initially intended to avail a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- but fraudulently documents were created as if the loan application was for Rs.2,25,000/-.  Further, the allegation of the complainants is that the amount was not really given to them but it was given to some other person are all cannot be considered by this Commission and as such the complainants failed to prove the relationship of the consumer and the service provider between the complainants and the opposite parties who rendered service to the complainants for consideration and subsequently failed to prove the deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties.    In fact, prima facie, version of the opposite parties are satisfactorily proved that the transaction between the complainants is only loan transactions which involves many question of facts which cannot be considered by the Consumer Commission and as such the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint which is perfectly in order and hence this Commission upholds the order of the District Commission by dismissing the appeal.    

12.         In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Commission, Cuddalore, passed in C.C.No.42/2007, dated 25.03.2019.  There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.  

 

 

 

         Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                           Sd/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL            S. KARUPPIAH,                         R. SUBBIAH,

      MEMBER.                             JUDICIAL MEMBER                     PRESIDENT