BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 366/2011 Filed on 21.11.2011

ORDER DATED: 30.03.2016

Complainant:

Vijayan. J @ Kakkamoola Vijayan, Kannankuzhi Veedu, Kakkamoola, Kalliyoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

                                   (By Adv. G. S. Sanal Kumar)

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Dare House, 2, N.S. C Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai-600 001.

2. The Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd., M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. P. Balakrishnan for 1^st & 2^nd O.P)

3. The Manager, Vanchinad Force, A Division of Vanchinad Motors (P) Ltd., T.C 36/986-1, Bypass Road, Chackai, Pettah P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. 

This C.C having been heard on 11.02.2016, the Forum on 30.03.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI:  MEMBER

The complainant in this case purchased Force Trump 40 pickup van for his livelihood by availing vehicle loan from the 2^nd opposite party on 30.06.2010.  The complainant paid Rs. 93,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,56,233/- was arranged by 2^nd opposite party and the complainant has to pay Rs. 8,507/- per month.  The complainant spent an amount of Rs. 45,000/- for fixing the grill also.  The monthly installment of Rs. 8,507/- was collected by the representative of 2^nd opposite party regularly.  The representative Mr. Subhash collected Rs. 8,507/- in the month of January 2011 and no receipt was given.  On enquiry it is informed that he was relieved from service.  But on further enquiry the complainant came to know that Mr. Subhash was working in the 2^nd opposite party company.  The complainant paid another Rs. 1,02,084/- to the 2^nd opposite party on 23.09.2011.  But the 2^nd opposite party initiated arbitration proceedings and the intimation was given to the complainant from Chennai.  On 30.09.2011 the 2^nd opposite party’s representatives along with advocate commissioner and Sub Inspector of Police, Nemom seized the vehicle.  The Hon’ble Madras High Court on 05.08.2011 passed an order to seize the vehicle of the complainant and to hand over the custody of the same to the 2^nd opposite party on or before 05.09.2011 and file his report.  Thereafter there is no direction and the said order is not in force.  The entire proceedings adopted by the opposite parties are violation of the Hon’ble High Court’s order and the same tantamount to gross negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which they are liable.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum to direct opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 2,86,221/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- for negligence and Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental agony. 

The opposite parties 1 & 2 appeared before this Forum and jointly filed written version.  The 3^rd opposite party did not file any version.  In the version submitted by opposite parties 1 & 2 it is contended that the vehicle of the complainant seized by the opposite parties illegally will not come under the purview of the Act because the vehicle was seized as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the order for seizure of the vehicle passed on 05.08.2011, was extended till 10.10.2011.  Thus this court has no jurisdiction to try this dispute and the same may be heard as a preliminary issue. 

The opposite parties 1 & 2 further submitted that the date of agreement was 31.05.2010 and not 30.06.2010 as stated by the complainant.  On 02.06.2010 the company has changed its name as Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.  The 3^rd opposite party is only a dealer and this opposite party has financed Rs. 2,97,000/- and not for Rs. 2,56,223/- and the complainant was a chronic defaulter.  The complainant never paid any amount in the month of January 2011.  There is no violation of agreement made by this opposite parties, whereas the complainant has violated the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement.  Before initiating legal proceedings the opposite parties sent notice by registered post on 08.07.2011 and the same was received by the complainant and no amount had been paid.  Only the vehicle has been seized on 30.09.2011 by the advocate commissioner appointed by the Hon’ble High Court.  As per the extension order the vehicle was seized on 30.09.2011 and advocate commissioner submitted report before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on 13.10.2011.  There is no gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complainant is not eligible for any compensation and only to be dismissed. 

Complainant filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P6.  Complainant was examined as PW1.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed affidavit and Exts. D1 to D8 marked.  Power of Attorney Holder of opposite parties 1 & 2 examined. 

Issues:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on opposite party’s side?
3. Whether the complainant is eligible for any reliefs as sought for?

Issue (i):- The main contention raised by opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.   The dispute with regard to the seizure of the vehicle of the complainant made by the opposite parties is illegal which will not come under the purview of the Act.  The vehicle was seized as per the direction of the  Hon’ble High Court of Madras as per Exts. D5, D6 and D7.  The complainant filed this complaint alleging that due to the illegal seizure of the vehicle he is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,86,221/- from the opposite parties.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 seized the vehicle as per direction from the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.  He has no case that he had paid the whole loan amount.  Even if he had any allegations with regard to seizure or jurisdiction, he can very well approach the Hon’ble High Court when he received the arbitration notice.  Here the complainant approached this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the seizure of the vehicle by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties cannot be said to be illegal.  The opposite parties have produced the copy of the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, which will support the contentions of the opposite parties.  Since the complainant has adduced no contra evidence, we are of the view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

Hence the complaint lacks jurisdiction and is dismissed accordingly.  However the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forums if he feels so. 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of March 2016.

     Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

      Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

      Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 366/2011

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Vijayan. J

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of vehicle purchase receipt

P2     - Copy of receipt issued by Vanchinad Motors dated 28.06.2010

P2(a) - Copy of receipt issued by Vanchinad force dated 25.08.2010

P2(b) - Copy of receipts issued by Vanchinad dated 17.06.2010

P2(c) - Copy of receipts issued by Vanchinad Force dated 31.05.2010

P3     - Copy of R.C Book of vehicle No. KL-01 AY 5739.

P4     - Copy of certificate of insurance of vehicle No. KL-01 AY 5739.

P5     - Copy of vehicle releasing order issued by Vanchinad Force dated

             30.06.2010.

P6     - Receipt issued by opposite party dated 27.07.2010.

P6(a) - Receipt issued by opposite party dated 23.09.2010.

P6(b) - Receipt issued by opposite party dated 23.10.2010.

P6(c) - Receipt issued by opposite party dated 04.12.2010

P6(d) - Receipt issued by opposite party dated 12.02.2011.

P6(e) - Receipt issued by opposite party dated 31.03.2011

P6(f)  - Receipt issued by opposite party dated 26.05.2011.

P6(g) - Receipt issued by opposite party dated 20.06.2011.

P6(h) - Receipt issued by opposite party dated 25.07.2011.

P6(i)  - Receipt issued by opposite party dated 23.09.2011.

P7     - Loan agreement between complainant & opposite party.

P8     - Original R.C Book of vehicle No. KL-01 AY 5739.

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - Naveen. T.P

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

D1     - Copy of loan agreement between complainant & O.P dated

             29.06.2010.

D2     - Demand letter issued by O.P to complainant dated 01.07.2011

D3     - Statement of complainant dated 07.09.2011.

D4     - Copy of power of attorney issued by O.P to Sri. Naveen dated

            02.09.2011

D5     - Judgment of Hon”ble High Court of Madras dated 05.08.2011.

D6     - Judgment of Hon”ble High Court of Madras dated 09.09.2011.

D7     - Report of advocate commission appointed by High Court of Madras

            dated 05.08.2011 in Appeal 3600/11

D8     - Copy of arbitration case No. 4160/2011 dated 01.08.2011.

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb