DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  17^th day of November  2015

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                              Date of filing: 01/02/2014

                                                      (C.C.No.20/2014)         

Gopalakrishnan,

S/o.Ramankitta,

Kaitharavu House,

Vandithavalam, Chittur Taluk,

Palakkad                                                      -        Complainant

(By Adv.R.Gangadharan) 

Vs

1.Manager,

   M/s.Grand Motors

   13/426 Star City,

   Kalmandapam, Chandranagar,
   Palakkad.

(By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran)

2.Manager,

   Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,

  C/o.Bajaj Auto Ltd.,

  Mumbai – Pune Road,

  Akurdi, Pune – 411 035                                 -      Opposite parties

(By Adv.B.Kamalchand)

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

On 15/9/2010 the complainant purchased a brand new model Bajaj motorcycle for Rs.45,216/-from the 1^st opposite party as per agreement No.L2WPKD00658448. The 1^st opposite party has financed the above said amount through 2^nd opposite party. The EMI was fixed as Rs.1256/-. The complainant cleared the entire dues to the 2^nd opposite party. The agent of the 2^nd opposite party has not collected the last due amount on 12/9/2013. Subsequently the complainant has sent a DD for Rs.1257/- dated 24/10/2013 of State Bank of India, Meenakshipuram in favour of the 1^st opposite party and which was received by them. Complainant submitted that before receiving this amount the agent of the 1^st opposite party called the complainant through telephone and demanded the balance amount of Rs.8554/-.  If the said amount is paid within one month they will reduce 40% from the said amount. According to the complainant, actually there is no balance due to the opposite parties. The complainant has approached the 1^st opposite party several times and requested to issue a statement of account and release the hypothecation certificate to the R.T.O. Palakkad, but they did not give hypothecation certificate. Subsequently the complainant sent a registered notice dated 4/11/2013 to the 1^st opposite party demanding to release the hypothecation certificate. After receiving the notice, they did not send a reply or issue the hypothecation certificate.

The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice, misrepresentation and dishonest, which caused mental agony, distress and prejudice to the complainant.

Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties. Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version contending the following.

1^st opposite party admitted the purchase of  Motor bike manufactured by Bajaj Motors Ltd. Complainant required a loan for purchasing the vehicle and the same was provided by the 2^nd opposite party. The terms and conditions of loan, rate of interest, equated monthly installments payable, down payment, rate of penal interest in the event of default etc., were all arrived at based on the consensus between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party had nothing to do with those terms and conditions.

 1^st opposite party contended that no employee or agent of 1^st opposite party had  contacted the complainant or demanded any amount or made any such offer as alleged by the complainant. It is true that a demand draft for Rs.1257/- dated 24/10/2013 drawn on State Bank of India, Meenakshipuram Branch was issued by post by the complainant in favour of 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party after encashing the said demand draft had transferred the said amount to the account of the 2^nd opposite party.

In fact it was complainant who had defaulted in remitting the EMI on time and he was never in the habit of remitting EMI on time. Hence complainant is liable to pay the same along with interest and other charges to the 2^nd opposite party as per the terms agreed by the complainant under the agreement with the 2^nd opposite party.

1^st opposite party is not the  custodian of the statement of accounts pertaining to the complainant’s loan account and not  the authority to issue the hypothecation release letter claimed by the complainant.

It is 2^nd opposite party who is the financier and who is maintaining the statement of accounts pertaining to the complainant’s loan account and only the 2^nd opposite party has got the authority to issue letter regarding release of hypothecation in the event of complainant clearing all the dues payable by him to the 2nd opposite party as per terms of the hypothecation agreement.

There is no unfair trade practice, misrepresentation or dishonesty on the part of the 1^st opposite party. This opposite party is unnecessarily dragged before this Hon’ble Forum by the complainant putting forward false allegations and hence the complaint is liable to pay cost and compensatory cost of this opposite party in the above complaint.

The 2^nd opposite party contended that the complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party for purchasing a motorcycle and thus on 31/8/2010 an agreement was entered into between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party for purchasing a motorcycle. And thus the 2^nd opposite party advanced an amount of Rs.34,000/- to the complainant and as per the agreement  the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.11,210/- as interest and the total has to be repaid in 36 installments. And as per the terms of the agreement the complainant is liable to pay overdue charges and other penal amount in case of delayed monthly payment of the installments.

There is no agent to collect the amount; the complainant himself has to remit the monthly installments regularly and promptly.  The complainant is never a prompt payer but instead he was a regular defaulter. He never paid his monthly installments in correct time and date, for which the complainant is liable to pay delayed payment charges as agreed by the complainant through the loan agreement.

Since the complainant is keeping due towards the loan agreement this opposite party is not at all in a position to issue letter of release of hypothecation agreement.  There is no unfair practice and misrepresentation on the part of this opposite party. In fact the complainant is still liable to pay an amount of Rs.7,564/- towards the loan amount. The complainant is legally liable and bound to pay the amount which is still pending towards the loan amount. But instead the complainant with ulterior motive approached this Hon’ble Forum to get unjust benefits.

 The complainant has come with unclean hands.  The activities of the complainant amounts to fraud and breach of trust. Hence the complainant is not at all entitled to get any amount from the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Thus this complaint is fit to be dismissed with heavy costs.

Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Exts.A1 to A5 series are marked from the side of the complainant. Ext B1  and B2 are marked from the side of opposite parties. Ext.B3 marked with objection. 

The following issues are considered

1.  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?

Issue 1 and 2

1^st and 2^nd opposite parties admitted that complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party for purchasing a motorcycle and 2^nd opposite party advanced an amount of Rs.34,000/- to the complainant . On the perusal of  Ext.B2 it is revealed that the complainant is liable to pay 36 installments at the rate of Rs.1,256/- on 12^th  day of each month. And also the complainant is liable to pay overdue charges and other penal amount in case of delayed monthly payment of the installments. According to the complainant there is no balance due to the opposite parties. On perusing Ext.A4 series and A5 series  it is revealed that the complainant is not paid monthly installments in correct  date. Receipts dated 22-11-12, 27-7-12, 29-3-12, 29-9-12, 30-1-13, 30-3-13, 20-10-11, 12-5-11, 12-5-11, 14-8-13, 28-1-11, 13-6-12 and 25-11-11  would show that complainant had paid Rs.2,512/- each towards 2 EMIs which is against the terms and conditions of agreement between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party. The complainant did not pay the installments in time and due to such defaults and irregular payments of installments,  complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.  In fact complainant ought to have deposited the EMI on 12^th  day of every month.  As per schedule forming part of Ext.B2 2^nd  opposite party has the right to recover penal charge of Rs.350/- per default/month and Rs.150/- as service charges per cheque/per E.C.S. Complainant did not produce any documents to prove that he had paid penal charges for the delayed payments. In the above circumstances, we are not in a position to attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not issuing hypothecation release letter.

In the result complaint is dismissed. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 17^th day of November  2015.

     Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                             Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Tax Invoice No.883 dated 31/8/2010 issued by opposite party

Ext.A2  - Copy of lawyer notice issued by complainant to oppositie party

              dtd.4/11/13

Ext.A3 -  Collection Pass Book issued by opposite party

Ext.A4 series  - Receipts issued by 1^st opposite party (7 Nos) 

Ext.A5 series –  Receipts issued by 1^st opposite party (9 Nos) 

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.B1 – Authority letter issued by 2^nd opposite party 

Ext.B2 –Copy of Auto loan agreement issued by opposite party.

Ext.B3 –Photocopy of accounts statement issued by 2^nd opposite party

            (marked with objection)

Cost 

No cost allowed.