Complaint filed on: 06.10.2015
Complaint Disposed on:17.02.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.130/2015
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Sri.C.S.Manjunatha,
S/o. Sri.Sadashiva,
Aged about 31 years,
Head Master,
S.D.M School, 1st cross,
Belt Road, Chikmagalur
(By Sri/Smt. I.S.Thejasvi, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Balehonnur Branch,
Balehonnur,Chikmagalur.
(OP By Sri/Smt. Mrs.Sunitha M, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP alleging a deficiency in not paying the road tax up-to-date to the RTO and not hand overing the receipt of the same in order to transfer the registration into his name. Hence, prays for direction against Op to clear the road tax up- to-date and to hand over the receipt for transfer of the vehicle into his name along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The Op is a financial baking institution who forwarding loans to the persons of different types, the Op also provided vehicle loan to one Mr.P.B.Ramesh S/o P.Bhaskar, C.K Vasi Village, N.R Pura Taluk, Chikmagalur, accordingly the said P.B Ramesh had purchased a Tata Winger vehicle and same was registered before RTO vide no.KA-06-B-6769, after the purchase and sanction of the loan the Op had hypothecated the said vehicle in their name. Thereafter the said owner of the vehicle made default in repaying the loan, for which the Op had repossessed the vehicle and kept in their godown of Durga Agencies at Shivamoga. After seizure the Op intended to auction the said vehicle and complainant came to know about the said public auction had approached the Op for the purchase of the said vehicle on 11.04.2015, accordingly, the complainant had purchased the said vehicle from Op by following required procedure. After purchase of the said vehicle the complainant had paid entire amount and Op had handed over the necessary documents of the vehicle and also given no objections to the RTO in order to cancel the hypothecation.
At the time of giving no objections the Op informed that the road tax payable to the said vehicle has been updated and complainant need not pay any further tax on the vehicle. The complainant trusting the Op had got letter prepared by Op to the Durga Agencies and requested to deliver the vehicle to the complainant. After receipt of the vehicle the complainant got repaired the vehicle as it was not used for long time. The complainant also approached the RTO to change the registration of the vehicle in his name, where the said RTO informed the complainant that they have issued notice dated 11.03.2014, demanding for payment of 14,985/- road tax plus Rs.2,995/- as fine for non-payment of the road tax and also informed the complainant that the Op has to file an application under form no.30 by paying Rs.100/- or to file form no.36 as F.R.C by paying another Rs.100/-, but the Op before auctioning the said vehicle had not fulfilled the said requirements, immediately complainant approached the Op, for which Op handed over the letter addressed to RTO dated 28.11.2013 and requested the complainant to approach the RTO with the said letter, as per the advise of the Op the complainant approached RTO to exempt the road tax of the vehicle, but the RTO authorities refused to exempt the road tax of the vehicle as per the letter given by Op and demanded for payment of the arrears of road tax.
The complainant had purchased the said vehicle with a hope that all required formalities were fulfilled by Op, but after purchase, the vehicle was not transferred into his name and complainant not able to use the vehicle without registration into his name. Hence, Op by misleading and misrepresenting have sold the vehicle to the complainant, hence, Op rendered deficiency in service in not providing grounds for transfer of registration into his name.
Op by concealing the true facts and by playing a fraud have sold the vehicle to the complainant and all required papers were given in the name of P.B Ramesh only, apart from that the Op had cleverly managed the events and avoided the name of the complainant in any of their documents, the letter issued to Durga Agencies, Shivamoga is only the document which the complainant holds to establish the transaction between the complainant and Op, hence, Op rendered a deficiency in service in not transferring the registration certificate into his name after auction sale. Hence, prays for direction against Op to pay the road tax arrears and to issue certificate for cancellation of the hypothecation in the interest of justice and equity and also prays for compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op appeared through his counsel and filed version ad contended that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and this Op. The dispute raised by complainant is manifestly outside the purview of the consumer protection Act and this forum has not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
It is true that they have provided a loan to one Mr.P.B Ramesh S/o Bhaskhar, who purchased the Tata Winger vehicle and also executed all necessary loan documents, after purchase of the said vehicle it was registered before RTO in the name of said P.B Ramesh. The said P.B Ramesh after availing a loan had only paid one to three installments and the loan account become NPA and as per the loan agreement this Op repossessed the vehicle as per the procedure, the vehicle was kept for public auction to recover the loan, in the meantime the said P.B Ramesh had approached the Op bank by submitting offer letter dated 10.03.2015 for compromise and undertake to settle the loan at one time settlement with some concession, in the said letter the P.B Ramesh abide all the terms and conditions stipulated by the bank with respect to the settlement and also undertaken to pay the road tax dues and other charges if any in order to settle the matter, thereafter this Op bank had handed over all the necessary documents relating to the vehicle and also given no objections to RTO in order to cancel the hypothecation and to lift the clause of hypothecation entered in the R.C book, after completing all formalities the seized vehicle had handed over to P.B Ramesh on 11.04.2015. The said P.B Ramesh had taken the vehicle by fulfilling the due amount of the loan, hence, allegation made by the complainant are all false.
The complainant is a strange person to this Op and this Op had not made any transaction with the complainant, this Op bank never assured or agreed with the complainant that they are going to up-to-date the road tax and there is no dispute arose in the complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.9. Op also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to R.4.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased the Tata Winger vehicle bearing registration no.KA-06-B-6769 from Op in the public auction. After purchase the Op had handed over all the required documents and also issued no objections in the name of RTO in order to cancel the hypothecation of the said vehicle. When complainant approached the RTO for cancelation of the hypothecation and in order to change the registration of the vehicle into his name, the RTO have informed that they have issued notice dated 11.03.2014 demanding of Rs.14,985/- towards road tax and Rs.2,995/- towards fine for non-payment of the road tax and also suggested the complainant that Op has to provide form no.30 and form no.36 by paying Rs.100/- each, which the Op had not done, immediately the complainant approached the Op and requested for payment of the said arrears of road tax and to issue said form no.30 and 36, for which Op bank issued a letter addressed to the RTO dated 28.11.2013, the complainant again went to RTO and handed over the letter issued by Op, but RTO authorities refused to entertain the said request made by Op and demanded for payment of the arrears of road tax.
Complainant further alleges that he has purchased the vehicle believing that all arrears of the road tax were paid by Op, but Op by concealing and misleading the facts has sold the vehicle to the complainant, hence alleges deficiency in service and prays for payment of the arrears of road tax and also to issue certificate in order to change registration of the vehicle into his name.
On contrary Op had taken a contention that the complainant is not at all neither customer nor consumer of this Op, they have not transacted any transaction with the complainant, in fact the loan was sanctioned in the name of P.B Ramesh in order to purchase of the Tata Winger Vehicle, after purchase of the said vehicle by P.B Ramesh, he had not paid the installment which resulted in NPA of the loan account, after NPA this Op bank had seized the vehicle and kept in Durga Agencies at Shivamoga and proceeded to sell the vehicle in the public auction, in the meantime said P.B Ramesh approached the Op and agreed to repay the loan amount at one time settlement (OTS) by availing concession, accordingly, the vehicle was handed over to the said P.B Ramesh and also no objection was given to said P.B Ramesh in order to cancel the hypothecation entered in the R.C book. Hence, there is no any transaction took place between the complainant and Op in this regard, they have not assured the complainant to transfer the vehicle into his name, further the said P.B Ramesh also agreed to pay the road tax and also given undertaken before settlement of the loan amount, hence, the complaint filed by complainant is false one and there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op as alleged by complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
On observation of the documents produced by complainant i.e., Ex.P.1- it is letter issued by Op bank dated 28.11.2013 addressed to Regional Transport Officer, Office of the RTO, Chikmagalur, we noticed the said Op bank had requested the authority to exempt the road tax on the vehicle no.KA-06-B-6769 and also mentioned the owner of the vehicle is P.B Ramesh, who hypothecated the vehicle to Op bank, further we noticed another letter dated 11.04.2015 issued by Op addressed to RTO, Chikmagalur for cancellation of the lien in the R.C no.KA-06-B-6769 they are also stated in the said letter that the owner name is P.B Ramesh, in the said letter the Op bank has clearly mentioned the form no.35 was also issued by dully signing. Further we noticed form no.35 marked as Ex.P.3 for termination of the agreement of hire purchase. Complainant also produced Ex.P.4 i.e., certificate of registration stands in the name of P.B Ramesh and form no.29 for transfer of the ownership marked as Ex.P.5 and another letter issued by RTO addressed to the Op bank dated 11.03.2014, demanding for payment of arrears of road tax with fine marked as Ex.P.7, office copy of the legal notice marked as Ex.P.8. On observation of the entire documents produced by complainant we noticed there is no piece of document or materials to show that complainant had purchased the vehicle at public auction held by Op bank, the complainant has not produced any documents to show for how much amount he had purchased the vehicle and date of auction held by Op etc., In the absence of any such materials we cannot believe that the complainant himself has purchased the vehicle in the public auction and at the same time Op had taken a contention that the owner of the vehicle one P.B Ramesh had himself settled the loan arrears at one time settlement and taken possession of the vehicle from them. In support of that Op had produced a letter dated 28.11.2013 issued by them addressed to RTO at Chikmagalur, wherein they have categorically mentioned for exemption of the road tax and owner is P.B Ramesh in the said letter, the Op had no where stated that the said vehicle was sold in public auction and under these circumstances the allegations made by complainant cannot be acceptable. The complainant had not made any effort to bring the earlier owner P.B Ramesh in order to substantiate his claim, in the absence of any materials and evidence the allegations cannot be appreciated and complainant failed to establish a deficiency in service on the part of Op. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 14th day of February 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Letter issued by Op dt:28.11.2013.
Ex.P.2 - Another letter issued by Op dt:11.04.2015.
Ex.P.3 - Notice of termination of agreement issued by Op.
Ex.P.4 - Copy of the R.C issued by RTO.
Ex.P.5 - Form No.29.
Ex.P.6 - Another Form No.30.
Ex.P.7 - Copy of the letter issued by RTO
Ex.P.8 - Office copy of the legal noticed dt:29.08.15.
Ex.P.9 - Postal ack. Due.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex.R.1 - Office copy of the Reply notice.
Ex.R.2 - Original offering letter dt:10.03.15 by P.B Ramesh to Op.
Ex.R.3 - Intimation letter issued by Op bank.
Ex.R.4 - Ack. Due to the intimation letter.
Dated:17.02.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
