BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.262 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          03.06.2015

                                              Date of Decision:            13.06.2016

Jatinder Kumar son of Raj Kumar, resident of House No.3036, Sector 56, Palsaura, Chandigarh.

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Stan Autos Private Limited, C-39, Industrial Area, Phase-III, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Managing Director.

2.     Stan Autos Private Limited, Workshop, Plot No.C-89, Phase-7, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Managing Director.

3.     Stan Autos Private Limited, Bodyshop, Plot No.C-147, Phase-7, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Managing Director.

4.     Axis Bank Private Limited, SCO 350-352, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Ashok Verma, counsel for the complainant.

None for OP Nos.1 to 3.

Shri Deepak Jain, counsel for OP No.4

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:

(a)    replace the vehicle in question with a new vehicle.

(b)    to settle the tenure of the loan amount to be payable in 48 months as per the agreement.

(c)    pay him Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment.

(d)    pay him Rs.20,000/- as costs of proceedings.

                The case of the complainant is that OP No.1 is authorised distributors of vehicles and OP Nos.2 and 3 are the workshop of OP No.1.  The complainant approached OP No.1 for purchase of Maruti Swift Dezire which OP No.1 offered to the complainant for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. OP No.1 also assured the complainant that he would get the car financed from OP No.4.  Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.1,49,000/- to OP No.1 on 14.10.2014 and OP No.1 assured that for rest of the amount, it will get the loan sanctioned from OP No.4.  After taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainant got it registered with the District Transport Officer. The remaining amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was financed by OP No.4 and EMI of Rs.9,897/- was settled for 48 months. On 18.10.2014 the complainant received another repayment schedule in which tenure of the loan amount was mentioned as 60 months instead of 48 months.  The complainant contacted OP No.4 but it did not bother the complainant.  

                On 17.12.2014 the glasses of the vehicle were broken by thieves and the complainant took the vehicle to OP No.2 on 21.12.2014. OP No.2 and 3 inspected the vehicle and found that only glasses have been broken and accordingly job sheet was prepared. After replacement of glasses, OP Nos.2 and 3 have taken Rs.11,710/- from the complainant as cost of glasses. When the complainant went to OP No.2 and 3 for taking delivery of the car, he found that there were scratches on RHS both door and LHS rear door on bottom side. The complainant approached Manager of OP No.3 who gave in writing that the scratches were occurred in the workshop of OP No.2 and 3.  The complainant has purchased the car for his personal use and due to scratches on the vehicle; the complainant has to face lot of harassment. With these allegations, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 

 2.            Upon notice, OP No.1 to 3 appeared and filed reply in which they took preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous. OP No.2 and 3 have undertaken to repair the vehicles but the complainant has refused to same.  On merits, it is pleaded that there was minor problem in the vehicle which they undertake the get repaired free of cost to the entire satisfaction of the complainant but the complainant was not ready.  The OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint being filed on false averments.

3.             OP No.4 in its separate written statement has pleaded that the loan of Rs.4,50,000/- was advanced to the complainant @ 11.5% interest. In terms of Clause No.18.1 of the loan cum Hypothecation agreement, EMIs will have to be paid till the time entire loan and interest has been paid. Inadvertently it was mentioned in the scheme that tenure is 48 months but actually the tenure is for 60 months.  Even otherwise as per clause No.18.2, the schedule can be amended/revised by way of written communication by OP No.4.  On merits, it is pleaded that principal amount and interest are fundamental aspect of loan and in terms of Clause 18.2 the system generated correct repayment schedule which is binding over the parties.  OP No.4 has also sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

4.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-9.

5.             Evidence of OP No.1 to 3 consists of affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar, their Manager (Body Shop) Ex.OP-3/1. Evidence of OP No.4 consists of affidavit Ms.Mega Ahluwalia, its Manager Ex.OP-4/1 and agreement Ex.OP-4.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.

7.             Purchase of Swift Desire vehicle from OP No.1 on 17.10.2014 is not disputed. The after sale service by OP No.2 and 3 i.e. the station centers of OP No.1 is also not disputed. The limited dispute the complainant has raised is that on 17.12.2014 when he has given the vehicle for repairs to OP No.2 with the complaint that somebody has broke open the glasses of his vehicle, OP No.2 prepared the job sheet and replaced the glasses and charged Rs.11,710/-. When the complainant approached OP No.2 to take delivery of the vehicle, he found some scratches on both the doors as well as bottom side of the left hand rear side. The complainant brought this defect to the notice of OP No.2 and 3 and they have admitted the scratches developed on the vehicle during replacement of glasses in the workshop. These OPs offrered to remove the scratches free of cost but the complainant did not agree and, therefore, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

8.             Qua OP No.4 the complainant has alleged that he has taken the loan of Rs.4,50,000/- for purchase of the vehicle in question and as per loan cum hypothecation agreement, the entire loan amount was to be repaid alongwith 11.5 % interest in 48 equated monthly installments. As per the complainant, OP No.4 without his consent has increased the period of repayment from 48 to 60 months contrary to Clause 18.2 of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement. The change of repayment schedule as per the complainant is unfair trade practice which he has alleged against OP No.4.

9.             So far OP No.1 is concerned, no relief is sought against OP No.1.

10.           So far OP No.2 and 3 is concerned, the issue for determination is whether the complainant is entitled to replacement of the vehicle or removal of defects occurred while the vehicle was in possession of OP No.2 and 3. The answer is very plain and simple. Admittedly, OP No.2 and 3 have replaced the broken glasses of the vehicle in question and charged Rs.11,710/- vide receipt dated 27.12.2014 Ex.C-6. Admittedly the complainant has noticed the scratches and brought it to the notice of the OP No.2 and 3 who have documented the same in Ex.C-7. When the OP No.2 and 3 have admitted their fault and were willing and ready to remove the defects of scratches, the request of the complainant for replacement of the vehicle in question is not legally tenable and the grievance of the complainant is not proved on record. On the contrary fair admission and solution offered by OP No.2 and 3 is legally tenable. We do not hold anything amiss on the part of OP No.2 and 3. 

11.           Qua OP No.4 i.e. the change of repayment schedule from 48 to 60 months without the consent of the complainant,  perusal of Ex.C-3 i.e. loan agreement clearly shows that the tenure of the loan is 48 months whereas OP No.4 has relied upon Ex.OP-4 the duly executed loan cum hypothecation agreement and Clause 18.2 of the said agreement empowers the OP No.4 to amend/revise/ substitute the schedule  and communicate the same to the borrower and such correspondence between the bank and acceptance thereof by the borrower shall be deemed to be an integral part of the agreement and shall be read in conjunction thereof.  The bank has communicated the change of schedule from 48 months to 60 months and the same has been acknowledged by the complainant as is evident from Ex.C-4. Since there is nothing on record to show any protest against such acknowledgement from the side of the complainant, therefore, it is deemed to be an acceptance and the complainant has no right whatsoever left to dispute the change. OP No.4 has acted as per terms of the loan agreement and has thus not indulged into any unfair trade practice while modifying the schedule of repayment from 48 to 60 months.

12.           From the above discussions, it emerges that the complainant has failed to prove any act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of all the OPs. Thus the complaint being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

June 13, 2016.    

                          (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

               Member