D.O.F:13/11/2019
D.O.O:30/12/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.219/2019
Dated this, the 30th Day of December 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Abdul Basheer, aged 32 years
S/o Kunhippa
H.No.11/708(7/341)
Narayanamangala,Koiamme Post, : Complainant
Kumbla via, Manjeshwara Taluk
Kasaragod Dist – 671321
(Adv: Suchithra.K)
And
The Branch Manager
Shriram Transport finance co.Ltd
2nd Floor, Aramana Arcade : Opposite party
Bank Road, Kasaragod – 671121
(Adv: Babu Chandran .K )
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act, 1986 as amended.
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a vehicle Reg. No.KL160 A 5399 LMV Taxi make by TATA motors of which the sale price fixed was Rs.3,00,000/-, from the opposite party. Out of the total price amount the complainant paid Rs 50,000/- as cash and for the balance amount he availed a loan. The vehicle was a used one and the opposite party agreed and promised that they will transfer the RC to the complainant’s name at the earliest. Even though the opposite party promised to transfer the RC to the name of complainant they failed to do so. The original RC was also not issued to him. The complainant was paying the loan instalment, regularly and thereafter due to financial crisis he could not pay the loan instalments as he could not run the vehicle due to non- transfer of the RC in his name. Since the opposite party was not taking steps to transfer the RC in the name of him, the complainant filed a petition before SHO Kumbla, against the opposite party. Even though the opposite party agreed to transfer the RC before SHO Kumbla he failed to keep his words till the death of the original RC owner. In that circumstance, the SHO Kumbla directed to the complainant to keep the vehicle in the police station compound until the registration certificate is transferred. Hence, the vehicle is kept in the kumbala police station compound without any crime. Even though the opposite party promised that they will charge interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum they were charging interest at the rate of 12.93% per annum without consent and knowledge of the complainant. Complainant submit that in the month of august 2019, an agent of the opposite party along with goondas came to complainant’s house and threatened the complainant to the entire loan amount. The opposite party played fraud and started to harass the complainant by visiting his house and by making phone calls and threatening the complainant. The complainant purchased the vehicle for eking out his livelihood but since the RC is not changed to his name, he could not ply the above vehicle. Now the vehicle is kept in idle in Kumbla police station due to non- transfer of RC in his name. This caused heavy loss to the complainant by depreciation of market price day by day. The non-transfer of RC of the vehicle to the name of complainant is gross negligence and service deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships. Hence, this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- being the price of the vehicle and to pay Rs.25,000/- as loss and direct 2,00,000/- as compensation and cost.
The notice issued to the opposite party duly served and they entered appearance through their counsel, who filed written version.
As per the version of the opposite party the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either on law or on facts. The opposite party submit that the complainant approached them for a re-sale vehicle and they informed him about a seized vehicle bearing No.KL60 A 5399 LMV Taxi make by TATA motors of which the sale price was fixed at Rs.3,00,000/- out of which complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as cash. For the balance amount the complainant availed a loan from the opposite party. But the contention that opposite party agreed and promised to transfer the RC is to the complainant’s name with loan endorsement etc. are incorrect and hence the name. The opposite party submit that the original owner of the vehicle was a chronic defaulter in repaying the amount and when there was huge amount as due, the opposite party seized the said vehicle and sold the same in public auction to the complainant after complying all the formalities. It is the duty of auction Purchaser /Complainant to take necessary steps to transfer the RC in his name, which is the first condition of the auction sale. At the time of auction the complainant agreed to that condition. The opposite party is not at all responsible for the act/ omission committed the auction purchaser. The opposite party did not agree to transfer the RC in the name of complainant. And hence opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant is a defaulter of the loan, who never pay EMI on stipulated date. As per the agreement the complainant is liable to pay overdue interest at the rate of 3% per month over the defaulted EMI along with collection charges and cheque dishonour expenses. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and they are not liable to pay any amount. The complaint is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked documents Ext.A1 and A2. Ext A1 is online print copy of RC of the vehicle. Ext.A2 is bank accounts statements. The opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence. They produce certain documents which are marked as Ext.B1 to B3. Ext. B1 is the award dt.23/12/2017 pass by an arbitrator in proceedings No. OP.No.109/2015. Ext.B2 is the copy of the Petition dtd.03.03.2016 filed by the complainant before the legal service authority Kasaragod. Ext.B3 is notice for appearance issued to the opposite party in PLP No.1845/16 of legal Service Authority Kasaragod.
Based on the pleadings of the rival parties and documents in this case the following issues are framed for consideration in this case.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.?
2. If so what is the relief.?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
The specific case of the complainant is that he had purchased a vehicle Reg. No. KL160 A 5399 LMV Taxi from the opposite party, for eking out his livelihood but since the RC is not changed to his name, he could not ply the above vehicle. Even though the opposite party promised to transfer the RC to the name of complainant they failed to do so. The original RC was also not issued to him. The complainant was paying the loan instalment, regularly and thereafter due to financial crisis he could not pay the loan instalments as he could not run the vehicle due to non-transfer of the RC in his name. Now the vehicle is kept in idle in Kumbala police station due to non- transfer of RC in his name. This caused heavy loss to the complainant by depreciation of market price day by day. The non-transfer of RC of the vehicle to the name of complainant is gross negligence and service deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships. The opposite party submits that the opposite party submit that the original owner of the vehicle was a chronic defaulter in repaying the amount and when there was huge amount as due, the opposite party seized the said vehicle and sold the vehicle in public auction to the complainant after complying all the formalities. It is the duty of auction purchaser / complainant to take necessary steps to transfer the RC in his name, which is the first condition of the auction sale. At the time of auction the complainant agreed to that condition. The opposite party is not at all responsible for the act/ omission committed the auction purchaser. The opposite party did not agree to transfer the RC in the name of complainant.
Admittedly the vehicle is a seized one by the opposite party from the original owner, subsequent to the default in repayment of loan amount. It was sold by the opposite party, the finance company in auction sale. It implies that the sale of the vehicle was not done by the original owner. It might not be necessarily with the knowledge and consent of the original owner. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act states that whenever the ownership of a motor vehicle is transferred, the transferor shall intimate the said fact of transfer to the registering authority within 14 days. The Rule 55 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules1988 states that the transferor shall report the fact in Form 29 and that the application for the transfer of ownership of the vehicle shall be made by the transferee in Form 30.
Here the original owner of the vehicle is not at all in the scene. The entire transaction is done by the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party had no ownership of the vehicle with them at the time of auction sale. Even though they seized the vehicle from the original owner for default in repayment of loan, they could not change the RC in their name. But they made the complainant to believe that he would get the ownership of the vehicle from them if he pay Rs.3,00,000/-, the amount fixed by them. For that they obtained Rs.50,000/-as advance from him. For the balance amount they created a loan account in his name and made him to pay monthly instalments. But even though the opposite party handed over the possession of the vehicle to the complainant, they did not take necessary steps to get the RC of the vehicle in to the name of the complainant. This is a clear case of unfair trade practice.
The opposite party submits that they have handed over all the documents at the time of sale of the vehicle. They argue that it is the duty of auction purchaser /complainant to take necessary steps to transfer the RC in his name, which is the first condition of the auction sale. At the time of auction the complainant agreed to that condition. But the opposite party did not produce any document to prove their contentions. The version filed by the opposite party is silent on the point that whether they have handed over the Form 29 or Form 30 to the complainant at the time of the sale. It is needless to say that the signature of the original owner is very much necessary in the abovementioned Forms. The complainant and the original owner have no connection in this case. As far as the nature of the case is concerned it is a case wherein a vehicle seized from the original vehicle has been sold by the opposite party finance company. There is no evidence to show that the original owner was present at the time of the sale. So, one cannot expect that the original owner of the vehicle would be ready and willing to sign the Form 29 or Form 30 in favour of the complainant. It was the bounden duty of the opposite party to take necessary steps and ensure that the ownership of the vehicle has been changed in the name of the purchaser complainant recordically in RC. Here the opposite party did not adduce any evidence to show that they had performed their part to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the purchaser complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this commission is of the view that there is gross negligence and service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, due to which the complainant suffered several hardships and loss. The prayer of the complainant is for directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- being the price of the vehicle and to pay Rs. 25,000/- as loss and direct 2,00,000/- as compensation and cost. But he could not prove such a huge loss by adducing reliable evidence.
The complainant state that since the RC is not changed to his name, he could not ply the above vehicle. It is also submitted that the vehicle is kept in idle in Kumbala police station due to non- transfer of RC in his name. But he did not produce any document to prove that aspect. No receipt from the Kumbala police is produced. No witness is examined to show that the vehicle is under the custody of the Kumbala police for such a long time, without registering any crime. Therefore this commission is of the view that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant towards compensation along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Exhibit
A1: Online print copy of RC
A2: Bank account statements
B1: Award by an arbitrator
B2: Copy of the petition
B3: Notice for appearance issued to the opposite party
Witness cross examined
Pw1: Abdul Rasheed
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/