Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

150/2013

T.K.Murugan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

K.Janarthanan

26 Jul 2016

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on:  19.07.2013

                                                                 Order pronounced on:  26.07.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 26^th    DAY OF JULY 2016

 

C.C.NO.150/2013

 

 

Mr.T.K.Murugan,

S/o.Kasiappan,

Plot No.6, Old No.4/424,

New No. 5/825, 1^st Street,

Iyyappan Nagar,

Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

                                                                                               ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

The Manager,

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance

Company Limited,

Dare House,

No.2, N.S.C.Bose Road,

Chennai – 600 001.

	.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 05.08.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. K.Janarthanan              

 

Counsel for opposite party                       : M.B.Gopalan

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

        The Complainant purchased a Tata HCV vehicle and in connection with the said purchase, the Complainant availed a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- on 30.04.2012 from the Opposite Party organization under agreement No. XSHUCH N 00000 747938. The loan period is 01.06.2012 to 01.02.2015 and the installment amount is Rs.30,558/- p.m. At the time of purchasing the vehicle, only 20 days left for the F.C.period. Due to expiry of the FC period, the Complainant run the vehicle only  for 20 days and thereafter he was not able to operate the vehicle on the road due to the non-renewal of the F.C., the vehicle was stagnant and without being used. Even though, the vehicle not in operation the Complainant is paying the monthly installments regularly till 01.03.2013. He had requested the Opposite Party for several times to pass F.C by producing the original R.C.Book and  other documents which is lying with the Opposite Party and the  Complainant expressed to the Opposite Party that he will bring the vehicle to the RTO office for passing the FC. The Opposite Party has  not responded to the Complainant’s request and not inclined to pass FC and have not taken any steps to pass the FC for the Tata HCV bearing Regn.No.TN 33 AF 2479. The vehicle is kept idle. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.57,000/- for transferring the vehicle to the Complainant’s name and also received a sum of Rs.15,000/- for FC fees and so far the Opposite Party not given any proper accounts for the above cash received by him and willing to produce the vehicle before the RTO for passing FC. The Opposite Party had also not paid the tax for the said vehicle. The Opposite Party failed to hand over the original RC to the Complainant in time. The Complainant could not able to pay the insurance. The Complainant rapped by the Opposite Party and levied huge interest for a dimension of Rs.1,56,000/-  as interest. Due to the high handed activities of the Opposite Party and their men, henchmen, the Complainant suffered severe mental agony and had sustained huge loss in his business and also lost valuable customers. The Complainant’s vehicle will get a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per day and for 12 months calculated to Rs.12,00,000/- as income. But the past 12 months, the said vehicle is kept idle and the Complainant sustained a heavy loss of Rs.12,00,000/- payable by the Opposite Party to the Complainant and damages for Rs.4,00,000/- for mental agony suffered by the Complainant.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant has borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- under Loan Agreement dated 30.04.2012. As per terms of the Agreement, the loan is repayable in 35 monthly installments commencing from 01.06.2012 to 01.04.2015 @ Rs.30,558/- per month. The Complainant is a chronic defaulter right from the beginning of the repayment tenure.  As on date a sum of Rs.2,73,370/- is overdue by way of installments alone, which is nearly 9 installments. Right from the beginning Complainant’s cheques were dishonoured. He has failed to discharge his obligations. The Opposite Party is forced to repeatedly follow up for receipt of payment instead of Complainant honouring his obligation. In view of the default the Complainant has incurred other charges as contemplated by the Agreement besides risk of termination of agreement/repossession of the vehicle as per terms of the Agreement. As on date a sum of Rs.3,42,801/- is to be payable by the Complainant towards defaulted installments and additional charges thereon alone. The Opposite Party does not have the original RC of the vehicle or has prevented FC being obtained. Since there is a statutory protection for financiers by endorsement of financier interest in the RC under Sec.51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no necessity for the Opposite Party which does not have the practice of keeping original RC. Hence the case of the Complainant as if he could not obtain renewal of FC or could not ply the vehicle are all nothing but a cock and bull story to create some dispute and wriggle out of his obligations under the Agreement. Without insurance FC cannot be obtained. When the Complainant does not even care to keep the vehicle insured, the plea of being unable to renew the FC for want of the RC is nothing but fraudulent act. There is no cause of action for the Complaint. The various relief sought are not sustainable.  Hence it is prayed that the Complaint may be dismissed with costs.   

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT NO: 1

           Is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a Tata HCV vehicle by way of availing a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as loan under Ex.A5 & Ex.B2 agreement No. XSHUCH N 00000 747938 on 30.04.2012 from the Opposite Party organization and the said loan period is 01.06.2012 to 01.02.2015 and the installment amount of Rs.30,558/- p.m. and the repayment schedule is marked as Ex.A3.

          5. According to the Complainant  at the time of purchasing of the vehicle only 20 days left for the FC period and the Complainant used the vehicle for the said 20 days only and thereafter he could not operate the vehicle due to the non renewal of the FC and he had requested the Opposite Party to produce the RC book and other documents lying with him to the RTO for passing the FC and however the Opposite Party did not produce the same and due to non renewal of FC, the Complainant sustained loss of earning of Rs.1,00,000/- per day and thus a sum of Rs.12 lakhs per annum loss to him and due to the loss of income the Complainant suffered with mental agony.

          6. The Complainant prays to direct the Opposite Party to produce the original RC and other records before the RTO Meenambakkam to pass FC for his vehicle and also handover the same to him. It means the RC book should be in possession of the Opposite Party. The categoric case of the  Opposite Party is that he is not having the original RC of the vehicle. The Complainant filed only 5 documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. None of the documents proves that the RC book is in possession of the Opposite Party. When the Opposite Party specifically stated in his written version that, he is not having the RC book with him, the Complainant at least should have stated in the proof affidavit that how the Opposite Party is in possession of the RC book. Further there is no evidence available that the Opposite Party is in possession of the RC book. The Complainant also not stated under what circumstances the RC book is with the Opposite Party. Therefore from the available evidence of the Complainant and his documents, he has not proved that the Opposite Party is in possession of the RC book and therefore the Opposite Party has not produced the RC to the RTO, Meenambakkam to pass FC cannot be faulted and therefore we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

 

 

7. POINT NO:2

          Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief from the Opposite Party and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.     

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26^th day of July 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     R.C.Book

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Insurance

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Repayment Schedule

Ex.A4 dated 27.05.2013                   Legal Notice

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Loan agreement

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1 dated 27.09.2013                   Welcome Letter with enclosures

Ex.B2 dated 22.03.2012                   Loan Agreement

Ex.B3 dated 17.09.2013                   Statement of Accounts as on 17.09.2013

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     Copy of RC

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT