CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of May 2013
Present: Smt. Seena.H.President,
: Smt Preetha.G.Nair, Member,
: Smt .Bhanumathi.A.K.Member Date of filing :12/11/2012
C.C.204/12
Ganeshan,
S/o.Chinnaswamy, Complainant
Pothanpadam,Muthalamada Post,
Palakkad Dist.
(Adv.K.V.Sajith)
Vs
The Branch Manager,
Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd, Opposite party
2nd Floor, Sun Shine Complex,
T.B.Road, Palakkad – 678 001.
(Adv.B.Kamal Chand)
O R D E R
By.Smt. A.K.BHANUMATHI, MEMBER.
Case of the complainant in brief:-
The complainant for for his lively hood for self employment has availed a Hire Purchase loan for his LGV Tipper, bearing No.K.L.07-AP-3207, on 30-11-09 vide Ag.No.PALGT.09 11300005 for an amount of Rs 254984/- agreeing to repay the amount along with finance charge with 36 installments to the tune of Rs.10,440/- per installment to the opposite party. After endorsement of Hypothecation in the RC Book of the vehicle, as per usual practice the RC Book is kept in the custody of the opposite party and a copy of the RC Book is provided to the complainant. As per the terms of the agreement the tax and fitness certificate is to be obtained by the opposite party after receiving amounts from the complainant ,since the original RC Book is required by the Transport authorities for these purposes. The complainant has paid the amount towards tax and fitness certificate. For fitness purpose after recenaly painting the vehicle was handed over to the agent of the opposite party, Mr.Najeeb as per the oral instruction of the opposite party. It is understood that the opposite party has paid tax till 31.12.10 only and not obtained the fitness certificate after 31-12-10 . This resulted is heavy monitory loss to the complainant .
1.So the complainant could not use the vehicle, though the permitt is valid till 24-8-12. Even on, 22-6-12 the complainant has paid dues to the opposite party. Then the opposite party was informed the complainant that the original RC Book is missing and that is the reason for non payment of the tax and fitness certificate.
2.The complainant has approached more than 25 times opposite parties office with request to get the tax details and fitness certificate. The complainant has even offered to pay the entire dues to opposite party and requested to give back the original RC Book.
The complainant has sent a legal notice to the opposite party. The opposite party has sent a reply with false contention. The above act of the opposite party caused mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant.
So the complainant praying an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.630000/- being the damage caused to the complainant caused by not using the vehicle from 31-12-10 with interest @ 12% and Rs,25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the contentions put forwarded by the complainant.
Opposite party admits that the complainant had availed financial services from opposite party for purchasing a vehicle. On 30-11-09 the complainant and the guarenter entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement and an amount of Rs.2,54,984/- was advanced to the complainant . Including financial charges the complainant has to repay an amount of Rs.3,75,516/- to the opposite party. The opposite party has never insisted to give any blank cheques, RC Book of the vehicle and any other documents. The opposite party is not in a possession of the RC book at any point of time and no occastion to hand over the RC book to Mr.Najeeb, The opposite party has not in the practice of keeping the original RC Book of the vehicles which are hypothecated to the opposite party has never given oral instructions to the complainant to hand over the vehicle or any document to the alleged agent Mr.Najeeb. The opposite party has no such agents. The complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,46,345/- to the opposite party towards the loan amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complainant is to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits and Ext.A1 to A7 marked, on the part of the complainant . Ext.A1 to A3 marked subject to proof. Ext.B1 and B2 marked on the part of opposite party. Complainant and a witness were cross examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively.
Heard the matter.
Issues to be considered are:-
Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in their service?
If so, what is the relief and Cost?
ISSUES I & II
The complainant has purchased a Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd LGV Tipper bearing No.K.L.AP.3207, on 30-11-09 for Rs. 254984/- with the financial assistance of opposite parties under the Hire purchase agreement agreeing to repay the amount along with finance charges with 36 installments to the tune of Rs.10440/- per installment. After endorsement of hypothecation to the RC Book of the vehicle as per usual practice the original RC Book is kept in the custody of the opposite party . Only a copy of the RC Book is provided to the complainant. For obtaining tax and fitness certificate the complainant paid to the opposite party. After necessary painting the vehicle was handed over to the agent of the opposite party as per the opposite party's oral instruction. For all these purpose the original RC of the vehicle is necessary. Opposite party has paid tax till 31-12-10 only and not obtained the fitness certificate after 31-12-10. So the complainant could not use the vehicle. The complainant approached the opposite party several times and offered to pay the entire dues to opposite party and requested to give back the original RC Book. Then the opposite party informed that the original RC Book is missing and that is the reason for non payment of Tax and Fitness certificate.
Ext.A7 Hire Purchase Agreement is admitted by the opposite party . Even though the Ext.A3 series subjected to proof the document produced by the opposite party i.e. Ext.B2 itself shows that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.318500/- towards the loan amount. The total amount to be paid by the complainant is Rs.375516/-. So that the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs. 57016/- more to the opposite party.
At the time of cross examination the complainant deposed that “loan Sടുത്തതിനു aശഷം hypothecation mark sചയ്യുന്നതിനുേവണ്ടി RTO യില് ഞാന് sകാണ്ടു aപായിട്ടില്ല. . Najeeb F¶ Iw]\n bpsS GPâmWv sകാണ്ടു aപായത്. Iw]\nbn hÀ¡v sചയ്യുന്ന സജിത് കുമാറാണ് എനിക്ക x Najeeb sv ]cnNbs¸Sp¯n X¶-Xv. Sajith Kumar 121 company address sn visiting card Fs³d ssകവശമുണ്ട്. ഞാന് aലാണിനായി aപാktXaപാള് അവിsട work sചയ്യുന്നുണ്ടായിരുന്നു. .. But the complainant has not taken any steps to prove these facts. So that there is no evidence to show that the RC Book of the vehicle is in. The custody of opposite party. Moreover the complainant has not applied to get duplicate RC .
The prayer in the complainant is only regarding the compensation for non giving the RC Book.
From the above discussion we are not in a position to attribute any defeciency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result, complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 24th day of May, 2013.
Smt.Seena.H
President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
Member.
