BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 9th day of March 2018
Filed on : 01-03-2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.96/2017
Between
Bincy P Paul, : Complainant
Pulickal house, Mudackarai, (By Adv. M. Priyalal, Ayodhy,
Kuruppampady P.O., Chirayakam P.O., Thakazhy,
Ernakulam-683 545. Alappuzhi)
Now res. at #142,
Girinagar Canal road,
Ernakulam-682 020,
Kadavanthra P.O.
And
1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., : Opposite parties
1-Think Techno Campus Building (party-in-person)
A, 2nd floor, Off Pokhran Road-2,
Thane (west),
400 601 rep. by Managing Director.
2. Branch Manager (Cochin),
TATA Motors Finance Ltd.,
Smart Centre, 4th Floor,
Civil Lane road, Chembumukku,
Ernakulam-682 021.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
2. The complainant availed a car loan facility from the 1st opposite party on 01-03-2012 for an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/-, in order to buy a Tata Nano car bearing Reg. No. KL-40 F 7254. On 21-09-2016 the complainant wanted to close the loan account and to get a No Objection Certificate in order to cancel the hypothecation of the vehicle at RTO office Perumbavoor. The opposite party at that time came up with an unreasonable demand of Rs. 2,76,120/- instead of the actual dues of Rs. 22,193/-. When the complainant questioned the same, the matter was settled on 25-10-2016 for an amount of Rs. 22,891/-. The opposite parties however, failed to provide the NOC to the complainant on time as adhered . The assurance was given to NOC on or before 04-11-2016. There was a delay in 10 days in delivery of NOC. The 10 security cheques given by the complainant at the time of taking the loan were also not returned. Since the NOC was received only 18-11-2017 the complainant lost a buyer for her car, which she wanted to sell urgently. The loan account was closed on 26-10-2016 and NOC was ready on 28-10-2016. It reached the local office of the opposite party on 05-11-2016. However, the NOC was delivered to the complainant only at a belated stage. The complainant had suffered a loss of one day's wage and travelling expenses of Rs. 1,000/- to visit the local office of the opposite parties on 15-11-2016 and suffered mental agony . She also lost Rs. 25,000/- due to the aborted sale offer of the car. Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite parties appeared and filed a version resisting the complaint contending inter-alia as follows:
4. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer protection Act 1986. The transaction allegedly intended by the complainant was a commercial transaction. The complainant admitted that she is a school teacher and obviously the transaction of sale of car is a commercial one. The complaint is therefore not maintainable. The delay in delivering NOC to the complainant occured only because of the branch of the opposite parties had informed the complainant to come and collect it personally.
The opposite party was not expected to give the No Objection Certificate to strangers. It was only since the complainant failed to come and collect the NOC, and the delay occurred. The NOC was dispatched from the office of the 1st opposite party on 28-10-2016, without any delay. The NOC has already been returned to the complainant and the unused cheques were already destroyed. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The evidence in this case consists of Exbts. A1 to A6 documents without any oral evidence. Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence.
Following issues were settled for consideration.
- Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
- Reliefs and costs.
6. Issue No. i. Exbts. A1 to A5 documents are the e-mail communications between the complainant and the 1st opposite party . The complainant has no case that there was any delay on the part of the 1st opposite party in issuing the NOC. The delay is allegedly caused at the local office. The complainant did not adduce any oral evidence to speak about her harrowing experience allegedly at the instance of the 2nd opposite party as narrated in the complaint, while claiming the compensation. The complainant did not produce any oral or documentary evidence to prove that her daily wages was Rs. 1,000/- and that she had entrusted 10 security cheques to the opposite party. The complainant has therefore not proved her allegations stated in the complaint by reliable evidence. Issue is therefore found against the complainant.
7. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i. against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9th day of March 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Senior Superintendent. Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of e-mail dt. 17-11-2016
A2 : Copy of e-mail dt. 29-10-2016
A3 : Copy of e-mail dt. 26-10-2016
A4 : Copy of e-mail dt. 22-02-2017
A5 : Copy of e-mail dt. 21-10-2016
A6 : Copy of e-mail dt. 19-10-2016
A7 : Copy of certificate of registration
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on :
