BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.52/2009 Order dated this the 31st day of August 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Smt.Mamatha W/o Venkata Swamy, M/s Unity Agro Centre, A.P.M.C. Road, Kallahalli, Mandya City. (By Sri.Yogananda., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Branch Manager, Tata Finance Ltd., TML Finance Service Ltd., No.189, 10K Corner Store, Ramavillas Road, K.R.Mohalla, Mysore. 2. The Branch Manager, Urs Car, Near Hardwick School, J.L.B. Road, Mysore. 3. The Branch Manager, Prerana Motors, Opp: Visveswaraiah Park, M.C.Road, B.G.Layout, Mandya City. (EXPARTE) (By Sri.G.B.Arunkumar., Advocate for O.Ps.1 & 2) Date of complaint 15.05.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 02.06.2009 Date of order 31.08.2009 Total Period 2 Months 29 Days Result The complaint is allowed in part, directing the 1st Opposite party to return the original documents with clearance certificate to the Complainant after getting cancellation of the H.P. in the R.C. book within 4 weeks after the Complainant deposit Rs.760/-. 1st Opposite party shall pay cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties for a direction to return the original documents and cancel the H.P. in the R.C. through the R.T.O. Office, Mandya and also compensation of Rs.50,000/- with costs. 2. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has purchased Tata Indica Car bearing No.KA.11-4586 from 2nd Opposite party out of the Financial Assistance provided by 1st Opposite party. As per the contract, the 1st Opposite party after discharge of the entire loan, bound to return the original R.C. key and also Clearance Certificate. Even though, the loan was discharged, the Opposite party has not returned the original R.C. key and clearance certificate in spite of several requests. Further, the 2nd Opposite party is a Authorised Agent of 1st Opposite party who mediated for the loan and it is its duty that original documents are returned to the Complainant. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st Opposite party. In spite of legal notice they have not complied. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The Notice served on Opposite parties 1 to 3. 3rd Opposite party has remained exparte. I & II Opposite party has filed version. 4. The 1st Opposite party has pleaded that as per the terms of the agreement, the Complainant is bound to remit the loan installments within the stipulated time, by way of cash, Cheque or Demand Draft. It is for the Complainant to see that the amount remitted by way of cheque is honoured and credited within time. In case of any delay in making payment of installments, collection agent of 1st Opposite party will be sent to the place of the borrower and charges pertaining to the same will have to be born by the borrower. The Complainant will be given Cardex Statement pertaining to the entries of loan transaction. The Complainant had given 3 cheques dated 20.03.2005, 20.03.2006 and 25.05.2007 and they were dis-honoured by the Bank. Therefore, the Complainant is liable to pay over due charges till payment. Hence, the Complainant is due of Rs.8,107.75 paise. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to the relief sought and 1st Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. 5. The 2nd Opposite party has filed version calling upon the Complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint. 2nd Opposite party is an Authorized dealer of the cars of Tata Company. The 2nd Opposite party is not a firm doing banking business or a financing company. The 3rd Opposite party is not related to 2nd Opposite party. The 2nd Opposite party has been made a party only for the purpose of filing a complaint. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 6. During trial, the Complainant is examined and he has produced Ex.C.1 to C.10. The 1st Opposite party has filed affidavit of Power of Attorney Holder of 1st Opposite party. 7. We have heard both the sides. 8. The 1st Opposite party has filed written arguments. 9. We have perused the documents. 10. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Complainant has discharged the loan taken for the purchase of a car from 1st Opposite party or whether he is due of any amount towards the loan? 2. Whether the 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 11. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 12. The undisputed facts borne out from the materials on record are that the Complainant has purchased Tata Indica Car bearing No.KA.11-4586 from 2nd Opposite party, Dealer, out of Financial Assistance given by the 1st Opposite party. According to the Complainant, he has discharged the loan, but 1st Opposite party has disputed the same. According to the 1st Opposite party, the Complainant is still due of Rs.8,107/-. 13. It is an admitted fact that the 3 cheques given by the Complainant dated 20.03.2005, 20.03.2006 and 25.05.2007 were not honoured by the Bank of the Complainant. But, the Complainant has furnished the D.D. for the said amount as per Ex.C.4, C.6 and C.7. The Complainant has also produced Ex.C.8 the contract details and repayment extract as per Ex.C.9 issued by the 1st Opposite party. The Complainant has also produced the bank account statement extract Ex.C.10. 14. Now, according to the 1st Opposite party since there is delay in payment as the cheques are not honoured by the bank, the 1st Opposite party would send collection agent and charges will have to be born by the Complainant and further for delayed payment, he is liable to pay over due charges. According to the Opposite party, the Complainant is yet to pay Rs.8,107/- as on 04.06.2009 apart from over due interest and other applicable charges. But, in the written arguments, the 1st Opposite party has calculated the balance as follows; 1. Cheque bearing No.580457 dated 20.03.2005, paid on 13.04.2005 by way of D.D. Over Due Charges Rs.169/- Bank Charges Rs.400/- TOTAL Rs.569/- 2. Cheque bearing No.265286 dated 20.05.2007, paid on 04.06.2007. Over Due Charges Rs.260/- Bank Charges Rs.400/- Collection Agency Charges Rs.200/- TOTAL Rs.860/- 3. Cheque bearing No.265296 dated 20.03.2006, paid on 21.05.2006. Over Due Charges Rs.1,317/- Bank Charges Rs.400/- Collection Agency Charges For April Rs.355/- For May Rs.518/- TOTAL Rs.2,590/- Further, 1st Opposite party has waived some charges, the Complainant is required to pay only Rs.3,942/-. But, the Complainant has also filed memo of calculation. According to him, he is liable to pay interest of Rs.27/- for the cheque amount dated 20.03.2005 since the D.D. is dated 12.04.2005. Further, he is liable to pay interest of Rs.115/- for the cheque dated 20.03.2006 and Rs.11/- for the cheque dated 04.06.2007. The Complainant has calculated the interest at 4.90% p.a. But, the calculation of interest by the Complainant is correct, because in Ex.C.8 the contract details, the rate of interest is mentioned as 4.50% p.a. On what basis the 1st Opposite party has calculated the interest in the written arguments is not satisfied and even the rate of interest is not mentioned. Further, the 1st Opposite party has levied bank charges of Rs.400/- for each dis-honoured cheque totally Rs.1,200/-. Further, for two cheques he has charged collection agent charges at Rs.200/- and for another Rs.355/- and Rs.518/-. But, the Opposite party has not produced any contract to prove that the Complainant is liable to pay collection agent charges when the payment is made by cheques. Further, charging of Rs.400/- each for three dis-honoured cheques is untenable and the maximum charges would be Rs.200/-. Therefore, the Opposite party has failed to prove that Complainant is still due of Rs.8,107.75 paise and it is contrary to his figure given in the written arguments. Therefore, we have to accept the calculation given by the Complainant and over due interest comes to Rs.160/- and for the dis-honour of 3 cheques bank collection charges is only Rs.600/- totally, the Complainant is due of Rs.760/- only. Therefore, we answer the point in favour of the 1st Opposite party partly and against the Complainant. 15. It is an admitted fact that soon after the discharge of the loan, 1st Opposite party has to return documents with cancellation of H.P. in the R.C. through R.T.O. Office and return the original R.C. with clearance certificate and key. But, in spite of legal notice, 1st Opposite party has not returned the documents on the ground that the Complainant has not discharged the loan. In view of our finding on point no.1 claiming more amount by the 1st Opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. 16. The Complainant has sought for direction to 1st Opposite party to return the original documents and H.P. in the R.C. through the R.T.O. and also compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Even though, there is dispute regarding the balance of loan, when the Complainant got issued the legal notice Ex.C.2, the 1st Opposite party should have replied stating the amount due. As per the submission of the 1st Opposite party counsel the account extract produced by the Complainant Ex.C.9 shows that the amount due by the Complainant and he has not questioned the same in the legal notice. The balance of loan amount in the repayment account is not challenged by the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant has also failed in his duty. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Complainant is bound to pay Rs.760/- and then only the Opposite party is liable to return the documents as per prayer of the complaint and the Complainant is not entitled to compensation as claimed. 17. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed in part, directing the 1st Opposite party to return the original documents with clearance certificate to the Complainant after getting cancellation of the H.P. in the R.C. book within 4 weeks after the Complainant deposit Rs.760/-. 1st Opposite party shall pay cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of August 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
