Date of filing:30.11.2012
Date of disposal:27.06.2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Friday, the 27th day of June, 2014
C.C.No.03/2013
Between:
S.Ramanji S/o Subbarayudu,
Rachanapalli Village,
Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. … Complainant
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager,
Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited,
D.No.19/4/12, Araveti Ramaiah Arcade,
Up-stairs, Ape Truck Show Room,
Gooty Road,
Ananthapuramu.
2. Shriram Automall India Limited,
H.O.709, Best Sky Tower, F-5,
Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura,
Delhi – 110 034. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri D.Shyam Sunder and K. Mohan Rao, Advocates for the complainant and Sri G.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate for the 1st Opposite Party and Sri R.Ram Kumar, Advocate for the 2nd Opposite Party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- paid towards the cost of the Auto and Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service , Rs.50,000/- towards loss of livelihood and Rs.50,000/- towards mental, totaling to a sum of Rs.3,02,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is a permanent resident of Rachanapalli Village, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal. The complainant purchased an Auto in the auction conducted by the 2nd opposite party and as he was the successful bidder for the Auto and paid entire amount to the opposite party in two installments on 24.02.2012 and 27.02.2012.The complainant submitted that the opposite parties have promised that the original documents will be handed over to the complainant only after transfer of the registration of the Auto. The original owner of the Auto was one M.Naresh who is the registered owner of APE Auto bearing No.AP-02-TA-3402 and the said vehicle was hypothecated to 1st opposite party as the said M.Naresh has not paid the loan installments regularly the said auto was seized by the 1st opposite party and was auctioned by the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,02,000/-. Subsequently the complainant requested the opposite party to hand over the Auto along with records. But the opposite parties have not taken any initiation in that regard. The complainant purchased the said vehicle by availing hand loan to earn his livelihood by running the Auto. As the opposite parties have failed to deliver the Auto along with records the complainant got issued a legal notice on 03.11.2012 calling upon the 1st opposite party to hand over the vehicle and to get the R.C. transferred in favour of the complainant. The said notice was served to the opposite parties but there was no reply from the 1st opposite party. None delivery of Auto to the complainant even after receiving the entire cost of the Auto which was purchased in an auction conducted by the 2nd opposite party clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are liable. Hence, filed this complaint against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.3,02,000/-.
3. Counter filed by the 1st opposite party stating that the complainant has suppressed the material facts for wrongful gain. The 1st opposite party submitted that the complainant is not at all a Consumer as he is not the original owner of the Auto and not availed loan from the 1st opposite party but he has purchased the Auto from the opposite party in an auction conducted by the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party is not at all a party to the said complaint and there is no deficiency of service. The 1st opposite party further submitted that the Auto was seized from the original owner due to nonpayment of installments by the borrower i.e., original owner and the said Auto was kept under the control of 2nd opposite party. Further the 1st opposite party submitted that the 2nd opposite party has conducted the auction and delivered said vehicle to the successful bidder. Hence, the 1st opposite party has nothing to do with the auction process and the procedure thereon. Further the 1st opposite party submitted that the complainant never approached the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party never issued any receipt to the complainant in this regard. The 1st opposite party submitted that the 2nd opposite party is a separate entity, having its registered office in Delhi and receipts filed by the complainant clearly reveal the said fact. Further the 1st opposite party submitted that the legal notice dt.03.11.2012 was received by the opposite party but did not give reply as there is no cause of action against the 1st opposite party. Further the 1st opposite party submitted that after receipt of alleged notice dt.03.11.2012 the 1st opposite party came to know that the 2nd opposite party has delivered the Auto along with RTO forms on 27.02.2012 itself. Further the 1st opposite party came to know that the complainant after taking delivery of the Auto has applied for transfer of registration in to his name. The 1st opposite party further submitted that the complainant has agreed to the terms and conditions of 2nd opposite party and participated in the auction and as per terms and conditions of the auction if any dispute arise in any respect of auction proceedings the claim shall be resolved through an arbitrator at Chennai only. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed as non-maintainable. Further the 1st opposite party submitted the complainant is not at all a consumer as the complainant has not taken any loan from the opposite party but he was only a successful bidder in the auction conducted by the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed by imposing exemplary costs on the complainant.
4. Counter filed on behalf of the 2nd opposite party stating that the complainant is not a Consumer has not taken any loan either from the 1st opposite party or 2nd opposite party but he was only a successfully bidder in the auction conducted by the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party submitted that the original owner M.Naresh was the registered owner of APE Auto bearing No.AP-02-TA-3402 and the said vehicle was hypothecated to 1st opposite party as he has availed loan from the 1st opposite party. The said M.Naresh is a defaulter hence, the Auto of M.Naresh was seized by the 1st opposite party and kept in the custody of 2nd opposite party and further auctioned as directed by the owner/seller of the vehicle but it is wrong and hence vehemently deny that the answering opposite party told the complainant that the original document will be handed over to the complainant only after the transfer of the registration certificate. On the contrary all the vehicles displayed for the disposal were offered under “as is where is” condition. Further the 2nd opposite party denied that the opposite party has not handed over the vehicle to the complainant and it is pertinent to mention that on 27.02.2012 the said vehicle was released to the complainant and a letter to that effect was attached as Annexure No.2 and infact the complainant purchased the vehicle for a sum of Rs.1,02,00/- along with R.T.O. forms, after paying the entire bid amount on 24.02.2012 and 27.02.2012 the complainant received the releasing letter from the owner/seller on 27.02.2012. Subsequently after consulting with the R.T.O. agents for record purpose and for fresh registration certificate on 04.06.2012 the said vehicle was again shifted to the yard by the authorized representative of the complainant for the inspection of R.T.O. for issuing a fresh registration certificate and the said inward entry document copy is enclosed as Annexure No.3 hence all the allegations that the opposite party has not handed over the vehicle to the complainant is false and fabricated for wrongful gain. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that the complainant is a dealer and not an end user and the complainant has purchased the said vehicle only to resale the vehicle. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that after receipt of legal notice the 2nd opposite party was shocked to read the entire allegations and contacted the complainant in reply complainant assure to withdraw the legal notice and verbally apologized for the conduct. The 2nd opposite party further submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and the complainant has falsely filed this complaint for wrongful gain from the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A5 documents. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B4 documents.
7. Heard both sides
8. POINT NO 1:- The counsel for complainant submitted that the complainant is a permanent resident of Rachanapalli Village, Ananthapuramu Manadal and he purchased the Auto from the 2nd opposite party by participating in an auction conducted by the 2nd opposite party. Further the counsel for complainant submitted that the complainant was a successful bidder and paid an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- in two installments i.e., on 24.02.2012 and 27.02.2012. The counsel for complainant submitted after paying the entire amount the opposite parties have promised to deliver the Auto after getting the registration transferred to complainant’s name. The counsel for the complainant submitted that subsequently the opposite parties did not take any initiation to deliver the Auto to the complainant. The complainant has issued legal notice on 03.11.2012 requesting them to hand over the Auto along with R.C. to the complainant. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the said notice was served on the opposite parties, the 1st opposite party has not responded. Hence the complainant having no option except to file this complaint against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- towards costs of the Auto and Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earning and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
9. The counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties have miserable failed to deliver the Auto inspite of receiving full amount of Rs.1,02,000/- and caused deficiency of service for which the opposite parties are liable .
10. The counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that the complainant is not at all a Consumer as the complainant has not taken any loan from the 1st opposite party. But he was only a successful bidder in the auction conducted by the 2nd opposite party. The counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that the original owner of the Auto was one M.Naresh who has taken loan from the 1st opposite party to purchase the Auto and as the said M.Naresh has defaulted in paying the installments the said Auto was seized by the 1st opposite party and kept under the custody of the 2nd opposite party. The counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that the complainant has purchased the Auto only to resale but not for his personal use to earn his livelihood as mentioned in the complaint. Further the counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that the 1st opposite party is not at all a party to the complaint as the 1st opposite party is only a financer to the said Auto. Further the counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that the said Auto was sold to the complainant in an auction by the 2nd opposite party and it is between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party if any dispute arise and the 1st opposite party is not at all a party to the said transaction. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that in the above circumstances the 1st opposite party has not caused any deficiency of service and there is no cause of action against the 1st opposite party hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
11. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that it is true that the complainant is a successful bidder in the auction conducted by the 2nd opposite party. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- towards the cost of the Auto and it is for him to get the registration transferred in to his name and the auction terms and conditions are that the vehicle which are displayed in the yard are for sale in as is where is basis condition and it is for the successful bidder to take the delivery of the vehicle after paying the bid amount. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that the complainant was a regular customer to participate in the bids conducted by the 2nd opposite party. Further the 2nd opposite party counsel submitted that Ex.B1 to B4 documents clearly establish that the complainant has participated in number of auctions conducted by the 2nd opposite party and hence he is not an end-user. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that the complainant used to regularly participate in the auctions conducted by the 2nd opposite party and resale the said vehicles purchased by him in the auction for profit. Hence he is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
12. After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents submitted by both sides. There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of the Auto by the complainant from the 2nd opposite party. The argument of the complainant is that even though the complainant has paid the full amount towards costs of the Auto the opposite parties have not delivered the said Auto and caused deficiency of service. The argument of the 1st opposite party is that he is not at all a party to the said transaction as the complainant has purchased the Auto from the 2nd opposite party only and the 1st opposite party has nothing to do with the transaction. Basing on the document filed by the complainant and the opposite parties it is very clear that the 1st opposite party is not a party to the said transaction and the 1st opposite party has nothing to do with the complainant. Hence the 1st opposite party has not caused any deficiency of service to the complainant.
13. The argument of the 2nd opposite party is that the complainant has paid the full amount of Rs.1,02,000/- towards costs of the Auto and on the same day i.e., 27.02.2012 and document/vehicle releasing letter from the owner/seller was issued to the complainant along with R.T.O. forms. Subsequently the complainant after consulting R.T.O. agents for fresh registration certificate the said vehicle was again shifted to the yard by the complainant authorized representative for inspection of R.T.O. on 04.06.2012. As seen from the document Ex.B2 which is the releasing letter issued by the 2nd opposite party clearly shows that the vehicle bearing No.AP-02-TA-3402 was handed over to the complainant on 27.02.2012 itself as the complainant has affixed his signature on the said releasing letter. Further the 2nd opposite party has filed Ex.B1 document which clearly established that the complainant has participated in number of auctions conducted by the 2nd opposite party on different occasions which also clearly shows that the complainant was a regular customer to participate in the auction conducted by the 2nd opposite party. Further the Ex.B4 document is the terms and conditions of sale document which clearly shows that the vehicles are sold in “as is where is” basis condition and it is for the successful bidder to take delivery of the said vehicle. Hence, it is for the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle after receiving the releasing letter issued by the 2nd opposite party. In the above circumstances we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
14. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 27th day of June, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1. Photo copy of payment receipt dt.24.02.2012 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Stat copy of the successful bidder confirmation slip issued by the 2nd opposite party dt.24.02.2012.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of payment receipt for Rs.82,000/- issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A4 Office copy of the legal notice dt.03.11.2012 got issued by the complainant to
the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A5 Served postal acknowledgement.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B1 Carbon copy of letter submitted by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.B2 Original letter submitted by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
ExB3 Photo copy of inward entry at Yard stock statement on 04.06.2012.
Ex.B4 Original Shriram Automall Agreement copy.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
