BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) SANGAREDDY, MEDAK DISTRICT.
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Tuesday, the 2nd day of June, 2009
CC.No.15 of 2009
Between:
Ch. Balakishtaiah,
S/o Late Narayana,
Aged about 59 years,
Occ: Retired Employee,
R/o H.No. 3-5-76/3/3, Opp. St. Marry School,
Sangareddy, Medak District.
… Complainant
And
The Branch Manager,
Sri Ram Chits Private Ltd.,
Having its Branch at Sri Ram Chits,
Mallikarjuna Complex,
Opp: New Bus Stand,
Sangareddy.
….Opposite party
This case came up for final hearing before us on 28.05.2009 in the presence of Sri. C. Vinod Reddy, advocate for complainant and Sri. Ch. Bhoopathi, advocate for opposite party, upon hearing arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards costs of his Suzuki
-2-
Motor Cycle and towards negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. The complainant purchased Suzuki Motorcycle by availing a loan of Rs.38,000/- from the opposite party, by hypothecating the said vehicle, on certain terms and conditions, including payment of monthly installments of Rs. 2475/-. The said vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant by appropriate registering authority with registration No. AP 23 L 1887. The complainant paid all the installments and cleared the loan.
2. The complainant has handed over the said Suzuki motor cycle to his good friend by name Mehesh Kumar, who requested the complainant to give his Suzuki motorcycle for his personal needs for some days. After clearing the loan by re-paying all the installments, the complainant approached the opposite party to issue N.O.C., but in the office of opposite party the complainant was informed that N.O.C. was issued to Raghavendra chary @ Raju S/o Mahesh Kumar. The opposite party acted negligently and failed to give proper service to the complainant as such the said Raghavendra Chary obtained N.O.C and got the vehicle transferred in his name, there by the complainant sustained loss of Rs.51,505/- and with extra fittings the total loss came to Rs.60,000/- . The complainant got a legal notice issued to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite party got a reply sent through its advocate refusing to pay damages and wroth of the vehicle and pleaded that N.O.C. was issued in the complainant’s name, which is false. For the acts of Raghavendra Chary @ Raju the complainant lodged a complaint before S.H.O. Sangareddy town police station. The complainant also lodged a complaint before R.T.A. not to transfer the vehicle. Inspite of it the vehicle was transferred in the name of Raghavendra Chary @ Raju, due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint.
3. The complaint is resisted by the opposite party by filing a counter to the following effect:
-3-
The complainant availing of loan of Rs.38,000/- from the opposite party, by hypothecating the Suzuki Motorcycle, purchased by him with the said loan, and repayment of the entire loan are all true and correct. After clearing the loan the opposite party issued N.O.C. to the complainant but not to third party i.e. Raghavendra Chary @ Raju, who is in no way concerned with the opposite party. The allegation that the opposite party informed the complainant that N.O.C. was issued to Raghavendra Chary @ Raju S/o Mahesh Kumar by acting negligently etc are all false and base less and are denied. The regular practice of the opposite party is to issue N.O. C. in the name of the person who avails loan, after clearance of the entire loan amount. In the present case also N.O.C. was issued in the name of the complainant. The opposite party is not concerned for transfer of vehicle in the name of Raghavendra Chary @ Raju. The opposite party has not committed any negligence nor put the complainant to any loss. The complaint is filed with malevolent intention to have wrongful gain. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs.
4. To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and marked Exhibits A1 to A8. The opposite party filed evidence affidavit of its Branch Manager to prove the averments in the counter. The complainant’s advocate filed a memo to treat the evidence affidavit as written arguments on behalf of the complainant. Written arguments on behalf of opposite party are filed. Oral arguments of both sides heard. Perused the record.
5. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for award for Rs.1,00,000/- against the opposite party as prayed for in the complaint?
Point:
6. The case of the complainant is that he purchased Suzuki motorcycle by availing loan of Rs.38,000/- from the opposite party and subsequently paid all the installments and cleared the loan and when he asked the opposite party to issue N.O.C. (No Objection Certificate)the opposite party informed that it was issued to Raghavendra Chary @ Raju, who is a third party. Later the said Raghavendra Chary @ Raju got the vehicle transferred in his name. According to the complainant the
-4-
opposite party has no right to issue N.O.C. to third party. The defense is that N.O.C. was issued to the complainant only but not to Raghavendra Chary and the opposite party is not concerned if the vehicle is transferred in the name of the said Raghavendra Chary.
7. The documents marked as Exs. A1 to A8 on behalf of the complainant are :
Ex.A1 is history sub ledger issued by the opposite party to the complainant in evidence of taking loan and repayment of all the installments. Ex. A2 is lawyer notice issued by the complainant’s advocate to the opposite party under Ex. A3 registration receipt which was received by the opposite party under Ex.A4 postal acknowledgement and got a reply sent there to under Ex.A5. Ex. A6 is office copy of report given by the complainant to police. Ex. A7 is notice sent by the complainant to Deputy Transport Commissioner, Sangareddy through registered post. Ex.A8 is reminder by United India Insurance Company Ltd.to the complainant, for renewal of insurance for his Suzuki motorcycle.
8. As availing loan by the complainant from the opposite party and repayment of all installments is not in dispute Ex. A1 is not useful to decide the issue. As already stated, Ex. A2 and A5 are notice and reply. The allegations therein are almost similar to the averments in the pleadings of both parties.
9. It is stated in the complaint that the opposite party issued N.O.C. to third party by name Raghavendra Chary @ Raju, who got the Suzuki Motorcycle of the complainant transferred in his name. Opposite party denied issuing of N.O.C. to third party. Its contention is that N.O.C. was issued to the complainant only. Even though the complainant stated in the complaint that opposite party issued N.O.C. to third party, the complainant himself stated in his report to police dt. 17.01.2009 which is marked as Ex. A6, that he delivered his Suzuki Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 23 L 1887 to Sri. M. Raju @ Raghavendra Chary S/o Mahesh Kumar, on his request for his use, but the said Raju @ Raghavendra Chary cheated the complainant and got the vehicle transferred in his name and sold away. Even though it is stated in the complaint that the complainant handed over his Suzuki Motorcycle to his good
-5-
fried Mahesh Kumar and in Ex.A6 to Raghavendrachary@Raju S/o Mahesh Kumar, it is not known as to why they are not added as parties to this proceedings. At least their affidavits are not filed. In fact as per Ex. A6 the grievance of the complainant is against his good friend Mahesh Kumar and his son Raghavendra Chary @ Raju. Such grievance cannot be said to be a consumer dispute with in the meaning of Consumer Protection Act 1986. As the complainant is not a consumer he cannot maintain this complaint in this forum.
10. Even presuming for a moment that the opposite party issued N.O.C. in the name of Raghavendra Chary @ Raju, when the vehicle is registered in the name of complainant unless the transfer of ownership form is signed by the complainant the ownership of the vehicle cannot be transferred from the name of the complainant. Therefore if the allegations of the complainant that Raghvendrachry@Raju forged his signature and got his Suzuki Motorcycle transferred in his name, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for it. Viewing from any angle the complainant is not at all a consumer within a meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For the grievance raised in the complaint, the opposite party is in no way concerned. In the circumstances it is held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief against the opposite party much less for award of Rs.1,00,000/-. The point is answered against the complainant.
11. In the result the complaint is dismissed with costs. The complainant is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/-within one month to the opposite party towards costs of this litigation, bearing his own costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 2nd day of June, 2009.
Sd/- ***** *****
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Copy to:
1) The Complainant Copy delivered to the Complainant/
2) The Opp.Parties opp.Parties On ________
3) Spare copy Dis.No. /2009, dt.
