D.o.F:4/11/11
D.o.O: 31/12/14.
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.295/11
Dated this, the 31st day of December 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Sathyashankara.A,
S/o A.Keshava Deva Poojithaya,
Poojapura, Arikady East, Kumbla Po, : Complainant
Kasaragod.
(Adv.K.Rama Patali)
1.The Branch Manager,SBI,
Bank Road,Kasaragod
2.The Branch Manager : Opposite Parties
State Bank of India,Main Branch,
PB.NO. 90,Port Road, Mangalore-575001,
Karnataka State.
(Adv.Mohan Prakash,Kasaragod)
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
That the complainant on seeing the advertisement of TATA Nano car loan scheme of SBI, he booked a Nano car Euro 11 by paying advance payment of Rs.2999/- and the car was allotted to him as per letter dt.23/6/2009. Firstly the promise of Nano company, was for one lakh person Rs.One lakh car will be delivered and the complainant was one of them among one lakh persons. As per the allotment letter the car shall be delivered between July-September 2010 and the booking loan period was only for 3 months and he approached the bank for converting advance booking loan scheme into easy car loan and as per the quotation of Auto Matrix, a showroom of Nano car at Mangalore the cost of the car comes to Rs.136,035/- plus registration fee of Rs.9500/- and total comes Rs.1,45,535/- and out of Rs.1,45,535/- the bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.20,535/- plus Rs.2000/- service charges and in total Rs.22535/- remitted by the complainant as margin amount to the Ist opposite party and on 22/12/2010 the complainant received a letter from 2nd opposite party that Rs.95,000/- D/D was sent to Ist opposite party and the above amount was received by Ist opposite party and debited to the loan account of the complainant. But not delivered the DD to the complainant inspite of the repeated request and the complainant had also given authorization letter to Ist opposite party for collecting the car instalment from his SB account No.10510480403 and thereafter without delivering the car the Ist opposite party started to collect the EMI from SB account and the amount in his account is completely finished and the cheque issued to some 3rd parties by the complainant started to dishonor and for the dishonored cheque also he paid the fine hence the complainant constrained to stop the dealings with Ist opposite party collected Rs.30,175.07 without delivering the Nano car. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary reliefs alleging deficiency in service against eh opposite parties.
Ist Opposite party filed version and denied all the allegation made against them by the complainant and contended that the Auto Matrix Bajaj Mangalore and the TATA Nano, Tata Motors Ltd , passenger car Business Unit 5th Floor One Forbes Dr.V.B Gandhi Marg, Mumbai 400023 and the State Bank of India,Fort Road, Mangalore are necessary parties to the above proceedings. Ist Opposite party taken another contention that all initial transactions in respect of the transaction took place at Mangalore within the jurisdiction of Mangalore Forum and this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. The opposite party further submitted that the loan sanctioned as per easy car loan scheme in respect of a car which is already booked by the complainant through the 2nd opposite party and in respect of which an allotment has already been made by the company. As per the conditions No.4( c) of the allotment letter of the above loan scheme, the complainant is in the event of allotment of car, bound to repay the loan amount within t 20 days from the date of allotment. Further as per clause 4(d) of the said allotment letter, in case the complainant failed to repay the loan amount within the stipulated period from the date of allotment, the bank may seek conversion of the SNBF loan amount to the car loan scheme as per the terms and conditions of the applicable car loan scheme and subject to the fulfillment of the same to the satisfaction of the Bank and thereafter on 27/7/2009 the complainant has applied before the opposite party for a easy car loan scheme since he is not an income tax payee and his agricultural properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the Ist opposite party and a loan of Rs.1,25,000/- was sanctioned on 24/10/2009 by the opposite party as per easy Nano car loan scheme and disbursed the said loan on 6/11/09 and DD dt.6/11/09 for a sum of Rs.95,000/- was issued favouring SBI SXIBF loan account of complainant as the said amount is to be adjusted towards the settlement of advance booking loan granted from the 2nd opposite party and sum of Rs.27,970/- from out of the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- is kept in the fixed deposit and the balance Rs.2030/- is deducted towards the SBI life insurance premium. The opposite party disbursed the loan without delay but the complainant committed difficult in repayment of the instalment as agreed and consequently the loan account of the complainant became NPA and accordingly the opposite party on the basis of the authorization letter given by the complainant constrained to realize a portion of the loan amount from the available balance in the SB account of the complainant and credited to the loan account and further on exercising the general power of lien release the FD receipt and Rs.29,316/- is adjusted to the loan account . Subsequently the 2nd opposite party has issued DD dt.22/12/2010 in favour the complainant as the car was not deliver to the complainant and the same is credited to the loan account of the complainant. The 1st opposite party has no knowledge about the reason for non delivery of the car. But since the loan has already been sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant , he is bound to repay the loan and it is further submitted that even now the loan account of the complainant is not closed and some is due and he is liable to pay the amount and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Subsequently SBI Mangalore branch was impleaded as 2nd opposite party. OP.2 filed their version . In the version they denied all the allegation made against them by the complainant and taken a specific contention that Tata Nano , Tata Motors Ltd passenger car Business Unit 5th Floor One Forbes Dr.V.B Gandhi Marg, Mumbai 400023 is necessary party to the proceedings. The 2nd opposite party admitted the booking of Nano car by the complainant and also admitted the sanctioning of the loan of Rs.95,000/- and the 2nd opposite party submitted that the loan account of the complainant was opened on 23/4/09 and originally the complainant was allotted with Nano Bs2 Ivory white as per the allotment letter dated 23/6/2009 issued by Tata motors and subsequently the said allotment made under the unique distribution No. 112385955 was cancelled by the Nano. In order to convert the SNBF loan account to the car loan scheme, the complainant t approached before ist opposite party for a easy car loan in respect of the car which already allotted to the complainant and on considering the request sanctioned the loan to the complainant and requested to liquidate the SNBF loan sanctioned by 2nd opposite party and thereafter the above said SNBF loan was closed. It is further submitted that after cancellation of the allotment by the company and the same was intimated 2nd opposite party through the personal banking business unit Bangalore with a request to get closed the SNBF account. The 2nd opposite party received the refund from the company on 29/12/2009. Since 2nd opposite party already closed the SNBF loan account with the amount received from Ist opposite party the said refund was returned back to the company on 9/1/2010. Subsequently on 6/12/2010, the 2nd opposite party has received an intimation from TATA Motors seeking revival of allotment for upgrading the vehicle of the complainant from E2 to E3 and that the booking amount was not credited to the account of the company then the matter of refund made by the 2nd opposite party was then intimated to the TATA Motors who in turn ed the refund amount of Rs.95,000/- to the 2nd opposite party 2nd opposite party sent the said amount the Ist opposite party and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of 2nd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
After considering the facts of the case the following issues raised for consideration
- Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint?
- whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- If so what is relief as cost and compensation?
In this case the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked and DW1 and DW2 were examined on the side of opposite parties and Exts.B1 to B6 marked. Heard both sides and opposite parties counsel filed notes of argument.
6. Issue No. The first issue is with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. The opposite parties taken a contention that except the grant of easy car loan all other transactions in respect of the transaction were took place at Mangalore. Hence this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. As per Consumer Protection Act the complaint can be filed where one of opposite parties of the complaint resides or where the branch office of opposite party situates. In this case even though the 2nd opposite party sanctioned the easy car loan the 2nd opposite party is the necessary party to the proceedings. Moreover Ist opposite party has branch office at Kasaragod. Here this Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the complaint. Hence ist issue is answered accordingly.
7. The 2nd and 3rd issues discussed together. The complainant seeking a relief of compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also seeking a relief directing the 2nd opposite party to deliver a new car and cost of the proceedings. Here the first question to be answered is what is the reason for cancellation of allotment of car to the complainant. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that they were not aware the reason for cancellation of allotment and 2nd opposite party acted as per the terms and conditions of Ext.A4. Ext.A4 is the arrangement letter executed by the complainant. According to the learned counsel for the opposite party the complainant failed to comply the terms and conditions of Ext.A4 which he had full knowledge. Ext.A4 clearly shows the terms and conditions of the SNBF loan (ie SBI Nano Car Bookign Funding Scheme). As per Ext.A4 the purpose of the loan is to meet the booking amount of the Tata Nano car as per the scheme and the nature of the loan is for a period of 90 days and it also specifically stated the terms of repayment. According to opposite parties the loan is granted under the SNBF scheme the compliance of the terms and conditions is mandatory.
According to the complainant he has not received the car and even then the Ist opposite party is collected the instalments from the account of the complainant and also the Ist opposite party received a DD for an amount of Rs.95.000/- through 2nd opposite party in favour of the complainant and the Ist opposite party refused to give the same to the complainant irrespective of repeated requests and the1st opposite party adjusted the amount towards the easy car loan on the strength of the authorization letter given by the complainant. The opposite parties also admits the non delivery of car to the complainant and collection of EMI from the account of the complainant by exercising the right of general lien of the banks . But according to opposite parties they acted as per the law. According to the opposite parties , 2nd opposite party advanced the car booking amount and thereafter the 1st opposite party sanctioned the easy car loan to the complainant. There is no latches on their part in sanctioning the loan. Complainant has also no case that there is latches on the side of opposite parties in sanctioning the loan. After sanctioning the loan by 2nd opposite party the advance booking loan account was closed and s per the conditions of the loan agreement the complainant has to pay the EMI. The 1st opposite party collected the EMI as stipulated in the agreement and ist opposite party received a DD for an amount of Rs.95,000/- from the Tata Nano Co. through 2nd opposite party. The company on cancellation of the allotment of car sent the advance amount to the 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party in turn sent the DD to the Ist opposite party since the advance loan account with the 2nd opposite party already closed. By exercising the right of general lien the Ist opposite party adjusted the DD amount towards the loan account and both parties are not aware of the reason for cancellation of the allotment of car to the complainant, The complaint is also silent about the reason for cancellation of allotment. In the written version the opposite party specifically stated that the TATA Nano car company is a necessary party to the proceedings. But the complainant had not taken any steps to implead the company as party array. Now the question is who is the person to say what is the reason for the cancellation of allotment. After considering the above facts we are of the view that the TATA Nano Company is a proper party to say the reason for non allotment of the car to the complainant. Tata Nano Company is not made as party hence the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party. From the available facts we cannot find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. Therefore we find that there is no merit in the complaint and the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Exts:
A1-Advertisement
A2-Application form for Nano car booking
A3-letter from OP.2 to OP.1
A4- agreement letter
A5- Allotment letter
A6-Proforma Invoice
A7-letter from PW1 to OP.1
A8-letter from OP.1 to PW1
A9-letter from OP.2 to OP.1
A10-Statement of account
A11&A12- SBI Pass book s
B1-Copy of DD
B2-Copy of car loan application
B3- copy of loan cum hypothecation agreement
PW1-Sathyashankara.A-complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
