Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

cc/138A/2015

K.Ramesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.Dhanasekaran

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  20.08.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  23.10.2017

 

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

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

MONDAY THE 23^rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.138 A /2015

 

 

K.Ramesh,

F-Block, 327, Barua Nagar,

Bharathidasan Street,

Chennai – 600 018.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

Shiram Transport Finance,

1^st Floor, S.P.Complex,

Waltax Road, Sowcarpet,

Chennai – 600 079.

 

2.The Manager,

Supreme Financial Services,

Franchise/Shriram Transport Finance,

31, General Muthiah Mudali Street,

Rainbow Complex, 1^st Floor,

Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079.

 

3.Mr.Himachal(Prop:HUFC Banking Solutions),

35, MAG Flat,Bhavani Amman Koil House,

2^nd Avenue, Indra Nagar,

Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.                                           …….opposite parties                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Date of complaint                             : 11.09.2015

Counsel for Complainant                  : Mr.S.Dhanasekaran

Counsel for 1^st Opposite Party             : M/s. K.S.Ramakrishnan &  R.Jayaprakash

 

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party                   : G.Suresh

 

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party                    : Ex - Parte                                                  

 

O R D E R

 

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

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to issue no objection certificate and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of income, a sum of Rs.25,000/- for an unfair trade practice with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had purchased an Auto Rickshaw bearing No.TN 07 AQ 2290  through the 1^st opposite party/Sriram Transport Finance vide loan agreement dated 29.11.2007 for the value of Rs.1,65,360/-. He agreed to repay the said amount in 42 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.4,469/- per month. The HP agreement was signed before the 3^rd opposite party, who is the broker of the 2^nd opposite party. The loan was arranged by the 2^nd opposite party.

          2. The complainant had paid entire loan amount to the 3^rd opposite party and he in turn issued no due letter dated 10.12.2011 to the 2^nd opposite party. The opposite parties have not handed over NOC, RC Book even after full loan amount paid by the complainant. The complainant issued legal notice dated 04.08.2015 and that was not replied by the opposite parties 1 & 2. The complainant was put to lot of mental agony and financial loss. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant seeking various reliefs.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party is providing finance for purchase of the commercial vehicles and the 2^nd opposite party is the authorized franchisee of the 1^st opposite party. It is true that the complainant purchased a Bajaj three wheeler Auto by availing loan of Rs.1,17,000/-  from the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party and the agreement value is Rs.1,60,884/- . After payment of entire installment, this opposite party has to issue clearance certificate.

          4. The 3^rd opposite party is totally a stranger to the 1^st opposite party. The alleged letter dated 10.12.2011 given by the 3^rd opposite party, to the 2^nd opposite party is not binding on the opposite party. As per the franchisee agreement, the 2^nd opposite party has to collect  installments from the parties and remit to this opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party has paid the entire amount due under the loan agreement to this opposite parties. However, the complainant is due to pay some installments to the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant received the RC Book from the 3^rd opposite party is admitted. Due to non issuance of NOC and due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered with mental agony and financial loss are invented for the purpose of the case.

          5. The loan tenure was ended on 01.12.2007 and from that date the complainant ought to have filed this complaint within two years from the date. The complaint had been filed on 20.08.2015 beyond the prescribed period. Hence there is no cause of action for this complaint. Therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation and prays to dismiss the complaint.

6. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 3^rd opposite party is not my broker. I have not taken the complainant vehicle and the said vehicle was in complainant custody even today. Moreover the above matter is already in arbitration proceeding completed award passed on 20.08.2010 and E.P.No.4524 of 2014 and the said matter was pending before the Honble x Asst City Civil Court. The opposite parties deny that the complainant is entitled to be compensated for any alleged mental agony and deficiency in the services on the part of the 2^nd opposite party as alleged or otherwise. The alleged compensation claimed by the complainant is arbitrary exorbitant, whimsical and remote to the facts of the case. It is 2^nd opposite party submitted that, there has been no deficiency in service or negligence on their part. The complaint itself is a abuse of the process of law, and made with speculative motive which is evident from the arbitrary claims made by the complainant, and deserves to be dismissed. Hence this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

          2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

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

8. POINT NO :1 

          It is an  admitted fact that the complainant availed loan from the 1^st opposite party  for a sum of Rs. 1,17,000/-  by executing Ex.B1 loan agreement to the opposite parties 1 &2  and the value of the agreement is Rs.1,60,884/- agreeing to repay the said amount in 42 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.4,469/- per month and in  Ex.A1RC of the vehicle (TN 07 AQ 2290) an endorsement of hypothecation was made in favour of the 1^st opposite party at the RTO  office and Ex.A9 is the Statement for repayment loan by the complainant maintained by the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant issued Ex.A7  legal notice dated   04.08.2015 to all the opposite parties and thereafter filed this complaint.

9. The 1^st opposite party raised an objection that the loan period entered on 01.10.2010 and from that date the complaint ought to have been filed within two years from 01.10.2010, however this complaint is filed on 20.08.2015 beyond the prescribed period and hence the complaint is barred by limitation. The 1^st opposite party admits that he had received the entire loan amount availed by the complainant. Immediately on clearing the loan the 1^st opposite party  ought to have issued NOC to the complainant and also should  have handed over RC book  and permit to him. Therefore, till handing over the above said documents to the complainant the cause of action is recurring to the complainant. Hence on the date of filing of the complaint the complainant has cause of action and therefore the complaint is not barred by limitation.  

10. POINT NO:2

           The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite parties 1 & 2 that the 3^rd opposite party is the broker of the 2^nd opposite party he was authorized by him to collect the monthly installments and hence he had paid the entire loan installments to the    3^rd opposite party and sum of the receipts issued by him is marked Ex.A1 and he also wrote Ex.A3 no due letter to the 2^nd opposite party to issue NOC and since the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not issued NOC, the complainant wrote letter dated 17.10.2013 to the 1^st opposite party  and he also issued Ex.A7 legal  notice and though acknowledged the said notice by the opposite parties 1 & 2 they neither gave any reply nor issued NOC, RC book and permit to the complainant and therefore the opposite parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service to him.

          11. The 3^rd opposite party is only a collection agent for the 2^nd opposite party and on collection he issued Ex.A1 receipts and pass book to the complainant which reveals that the complainant had paid entire loan amount. The 1^st opposite party also admitted in his written version that the complainant received RC Book only from the 3rd opposite party after the repayment of entire loan amount. The 1^st opposite party admits that the loan availed by the complainant was entirely paid to him. He further stated that the complainant received RC Book from the 3^rd opposite party. Therefore the 1^st opposite party is well aware about the 3^rd opposite party. Therefore the contention of the 1^st opposite party that the 3^rd opposite party is stranger to him is not accepted.

          12. The 2^nd opposite party also pleaded that the 3^rd opposite party is not his broker. According to the 1^st opposite party the 2^nd opposite party had paid the entire installments for the loan availed by the complainant. It is not the case of the 2^nd opposite party that he had collected monthly installments from the complainant and issued receipt for the same. However, the facts remains that the 2^nd opposite party remitted the amount to the 1^st opposite party and the loan also closed. Further the 3^rd opposite party after remitting the entire amount to the 2^nd opposite party, he issued Ex.A3 no due letter for the complainant vehicle that NOC may be issued. The 3^rd opposite party wrote Ex.A3 letter to the 2^nd opposite party to issue NOC establishes that the 3^rd opposite party is the broker of the 2^nd opposite party and the same is accepted.

          13. As per Ex.B1 agreement the complainant due to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,884/-. The specific case of the complainant is that he paid all the installments only to the 3^rd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party also admitted in his written version that the 2^nd opposite party paid the entire loan amount due to him. It is not the case of the 2^nd opposite party that he had collected the amount from the complainant. Therefore, the above circumstances prove that the 3^rd opposite party collected the installments from the complaint and he in turn paid to the 2^nd opposite party and he in turn paid to the 1st opposite party.

          14. Nowhere in the written version of the 2^nd opposite party, he had stated that the complainant due to pay to him in respect of the loan. Having received the entire loan amount of the complainant the 1^st opposite party owes a duty to issue NOC to the complainant. Even after demand made by the complainant and after receipt of notice and the 2nd opposite party also having remitted entire loan amount to the 1^st opposite party, the opposite parties 1 & 2 failed to issue NOC to the complainant is deficiency on their part and therefore, it is held that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service.    

15. POINT NO:3

          Ex.A1 Copy of RC book has an endorsement of hypothecation in favour of the 1^st opposite party. Since the endorsement in favour of the 1^st opposite party and having received the entire loan amount, the 1^st opposite party is also liable to issue NOC to him. Since RC is with the 1^st opposite party the permit also should be with him. Therefore, the 1^st opposite party can be directed to issue NOC to the complainant.

          16. Due to NOC not issued to the complainant, the FC was not renewed from the year 2000 and due to that he suffered loss of income and mental agony is accepted.  Further even after payment of entire due the above certificate not issued to the complainant is an unfair trade practice is also accepted. Therefore for the above said deficiencies, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of income and compensation would meet ends of justice, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 3^rd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is ordered to issue NOC to the complainant in respect of his Auto Rickshaw TN 07AQ 2290 within 6 weeks from the date of this order and the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony to the complainant besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 3^rd opposite party is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd day of October 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Payment receipts on various dates

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Copy of  R.C.Book of the complainant     

Ex.A3 dated 10.12.2011                   Settlement Letter issued by the 3^rd opposite party

Ex.A4 dated 14.10.2013                   Complaint to  the Deputy Commissioner of Police,

                                                     T.Nagar, Chennai.

 

Ex.A5 dated 31.03.2012                   Copy of FIR in  Crime No.588/2012 on the file of

                                                     J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police.

 

Ex.A6 dated 16.09.2014                   Copy of complaint given to the Deputy

                                                     Commissioner of Police Chennai – 1 and

                                                     acknowledgement for

                                                     C.S.R.No.391/CSR/CZX/2014  issued by the

                                                     S.I. of Police Crime, Chennai-79 along with

                                                     order passed in Crl.O.P.No.3509/15 dated

                                                     13.04.2015

 

Ex.A7 dated 04.08.2015                   Legal Notice to all the opposite parties

 

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     Copy of Acknowledgement Cards.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY :

                                                …… NIL ……

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 21.11.2007                             Copy of Loan Agreement

 

Ex.B2 dated  13.01.2010                            Copy of Intimation Letter to the Hirer and

                                                              the Guarantor

 

Ex.B3 dated 02.02.2010                             Copy of the Acknowledgement Card

 

Ex.B4 dated 13.01.2010                             Copy of Award passed in Ref.No.1359/2009

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT