BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Thursday the 23rd day of October, 2008
C.C.No. 09/08
Between:
Inja Venkata Narendra Nath Reddy,S/o. I.D. Rami Reddy ,
Vinaka Nagar,Chagala Marri (V) And (M) Kurnool (District) … Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager,Bajaj Auto Finance Limited,
Shop No. 2 to 5 ,II Floor, U Con Plaza,
Kurnool … Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S. Eduru Basha, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. S. Iqbal Basha , Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.09/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.72,500/- with 24% interest, Rs.50,000/- as compensation, Rs.10,000/- as damages, Rs.5,000/- as cost of the petition and any other relief or relief’s which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant purchased a Goods carrier 1000/RE under hire purchase agreement from
opposite party for Rs.72,500/- on 24-08-2005 , the said vehicle was seized by opposite party from a defaulter. On the same day the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- and the said vehicle was handed over to the complainant and for the remaining balance of Rs.47,500/- the complainant arranged finance. The finance amount was cleared by the complainant but the opposite parties did not delivered the concern records pertaining to the complainants vehicle i.e, RC, Insurance etc., Inspite of several requests there was no response from the opposite parties, being vexed the complainant got issued legal notice dated 30-08-2007 calling upon the opposite parties to return the vehicle records and to pay a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- towards damages for non plying of the said vehicle. The opposite parties after receipt of said notice replied on 11-09-2007 and 04-10-2007 with false allegation. There is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in not delivering the vehicle records inspite of clearance of loan amount. Hence, constrained by the lapsive conduct of the opposite party the complainant resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of their case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) Xerox copy of D.D dated 24-08-2005 for Rs.25,000/- , (2) customer statement as on 24-06-2007 , (3) certificate of satisfaction issued by Bajaj Auto Finance, (4) office copy of legal notice dated 30-08-2007 , (5) letter of opposite party dated 11-09-2007 to complainants advocate and (6) letter dated 04-10-2007 to complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A6 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged .
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite parties denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits that after successful completion of contract the opposite party has issued the NOC/ HP termination papers to the complainant and it further submits that the original RC book is misplaced by the original owner of said vehicle Mr. K. Narsaraju and the opposite party ready to issued duplicate RC book to the complainant . It further admits that the complainant availed finance for Rs.47,500/- towards purchase of vehicle Bajaj GC 100 and as per the agreement entire tax liability is to be paid by the complainant only, as the complainant did not pay life tax for the vehicle in question, the RTO authorities at Kurnool is not issued duplicate RC book . Hence, it is the complainant himself who is not coming forward for getting the duplicate RC. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party and seeks for the dismissal of compliant.
6. In support of their case the opposite party did not marked any documents but relied on the following sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of his written version averments and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. It is the simple case of the complainant that he purchased a goods carrier 1000 RE for Rs.72,500/- on 24-08-2005 from opposite party and on the same day the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- vide Ex.A1 for the remaining balance amount the complainant availed loan from opposite party and repaid the loan in toto and the opposite party issued a certificate of satisfaction vide Ex.A3. The Ex.A3 is issued by opposite party to the complainant, as to the receipt of full payments under hire purchase agreement from the complainant and all right over the said vehicle referred in the agreement stand extinguished . Inspite of payment of entire loan amount the opposite parties failed to return the vehicle records i.e., RC, insurance to the complainant, and the complainant being vexed got issued legal notice vide Ex.A4 . The Ex.A4 is the legal notice dated 30-08-2007 issued by complainants counsel to opposite party , where in the same grievances that vehicle records are not returned inspite of clearance of loan and calls up the opposite party to return the vehicle record and to pay damages of Rs.2,16,000/- for non paying of vehicle.
8. The opposite party after receipt of legal notice in Ex.A4 replied vide Ex.A5 dated 11-9-2007 and vide Ex.A6 dated 4-10-2007 stating that they are in process of issuing duplicate RC as the original RC book was misplaced by the previous owner and requests the complainant to pay the outstanding life tax due of the vehicle.
9. On the other side the opposite parties in their written version averments submits that NOC/HP termination papers are issued to the complainant after successful completion of contract, as the original RC book is misplaced,, the opposite party is ready to issue duplicate RC book, however the life tax for the vehicle was not paid by the complainant and the RTA , Kurnool are not issuing duplicate RC . In support of above contention the opposite parties have not placed any supporting material and in the absence of supporting material the pleas taken by opposite parties remained as plea for plea sake without any substantiation.
10. In this case the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party and the loan amount availed was cleared by the complainant and when the loan amount was cleared by the complainant, it is for the opposite party to return all the documents relating to the vehicle to the complainant and in not returning them, there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
11. The complainant in this case seeking return purchase amount of Rs.72,500/- as the opposite parties are at deficiency in service in not returning the vehicle papers to the complainant after clearance of loan the opposite party has to return the purchase amount to the complainant . For the above lapsive conduct of opposite party the complainant suffered immence mental agony for which the opposite party has to compensate by paying Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this case.
12. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return the purchase amount of Rs.72,500/- to the complainant taking back the said vehicle from the complainant, as the deficient conduct of opposite party caused mental agony to the complainant besides driving the complainant to the forum for redressal, the opposite party has to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs. Time for compliance of above order is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by us in he open bench on this the 23rd day of October, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of DD dated 24-08-2005 for Rs.25,000/-.
Ex.A2. Customer statement as on 24-06-2007.
Ex.A3. Certificate of satisfaction issued by Bajaj Auto Finance.
Ex.A4. Office copy of legal notice dated 30-08-2007 along with postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A5. Letter of OP dated 11-09-2007 to complainants Advocate.
Ex.A6. Letter of OP dated 04-10-2007 to complainant.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
