Tamil Nadu

Vellore

CC/15/34

Mr.M.Ezhilmaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

R.Margabandhu

17 Jun 2022

ORDER

                                                                                                                  Date of filing:   24.07.2015

                                                                                                    Date of order:  17.06.2022

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE, AT VELLORE DISTRICT

 

         PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.B.L.    PRESIDENT

                            THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.SC.B.L.,                   MEMBER- I

                            SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA,  M.B.A.  MEMBER -II  

                                    FRIDAY THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE  2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 34/2015

M.Ezhilmaran

S/o.R.Margabandhu

No.266, Phase-I

Sathuvachari

Vellore - 632 009.                                                                                  Complainant

-Vs-

The Manager

Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited

No. 15/1, Kumaran Complex

IInd Floor

TMB Bank Upstairs

Arni Road

Arcot-632 503.                                                                                 Opposite party

 

Counsel for  complainant                    Thiru.  M.Pughazhendhee

Counsel for opposite party                Set exparte (10.07.2017)

                                                 ORDER

 SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, MEMBER- II

This complaint has been filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Complainant seeking direction to the opposite party to pay the balance amount and to deliver the vehicle TATA ACE and to pay Rs.2,00,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and also mental agony with cost.

 

 

1.  The case of the complaint is briefly as follows

          The Complainant had participated in the auction conducted by the Opposite Party. He is the highest bidder for Vehicle No. TN-32-M-3967 TATA ACE. The sale price of the vehicle was Rs.1,05,000.  He had deposited a sum of Rs.19,999 as advance with the opposite party. The opposite party sent an intimation on 24.03.2015 calling upon the complainant to pay the balance amount within 7 days from the receipt of this letter. The Complainant had approached the opposite party on 30.03.2015 with a balance amount of Rs.86,000. The opposite party issued the voucher to pay the same in cash counter.  But the cashier of opposite party, refused to receive the balance amount, on the ground that he was busy with processing of his loan and asked the complainant to wait for some more time. The complainant on several occasions had approached the opposite party and requested to expedite his loan and he also informed that he is always ready to pay balance sale consideration. However, the opposite party did not show any interest in processing his loan and he could not pay the balance sale consideration in time. Thus the opposite party has committed deficiency in service on their part. Though the complainant was always ready to pay the balance amount, the cashier of the opposite party wantonly not allowed the complainant to pay the balance amount.  The opposite party vicariously liable for the act and omission of their employee. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice calling upon the opposite party to receive the balance amount and deliver the vehicle to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000 as compensation for causing mental agony. The opposite party received the same and replied but not complied with the complainant’s claim. Hence this complaint is filed.

2.       On receipt of this complaint, this Honble Commission issued the notice to the opposite party and the same was served on them.  But they did not appear before this commission.  Written version not filed. Several hearings given. No representation for opposite party.  Therefore, the opposite party was called absent set exparte.

3.       Proof affidavit of complainant filed.  Complainant to prove his case, examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.  Written argument of complainant filed.

4. THE POINTS THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION ARE

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

           2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?

            3.  To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

 

5. Point Nos.1 and 2     The complainant participated in the auction sale conducted by opposite party on 07.03.2015.  He was declared as successful bidder for TATA ACE of Vehicle No.TN-32-M-3967. The total sale price of the vehicle was Rs.1,00,000.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.19,999 towards earnest money.  He was supposed to pay the balance amount of Rs.86,000 on or before 30.03.2015 without penalty as per the terms and conditions of the auction purchase, it has been specially alleged by the complainant that the opposite party assured that the balance sale consideration can be adjusted from the loan to be availed from the opposite party. On the promise made by the opposite party, the complainant had approached the opposite party on 30.03.2015. The cashier of the opposite party informed the complainant that he yet to process his loan and asked him to wait for some time. However in the end of the day he asked the complainant to come few days later.  It is pertinent to note that on 30.03.2015 the complainant was informed through SMS that he has been declared as Successful bidder for vehicle No. TN-32-M-3967 please take delivery after paying due amount terms and conditions. This fact is not denied by the opposite party in their reply notice dated 20.05.2015.

6.       Though the opposite party fixed 13.03.2015 as a deadline for payment of the balance consideration, it has been presumed that the deadline was extended till 30.03.2015. Accordingly, the complainant reached the opposite partys office and requested the cashier to give credit to auction purchase from his loan account. However, he did not do so.  Though the opposite party categorically denied the allegation of the complainant, in their reply notice they did not appear before this Honble Commission to disprove the allegation of the complainant. Hence, we have no other option except accepting the averments of the complainant. Further, on going through the reply notice we find that there is a provision for extension of time, even after the deadline i.e., 13.03.2015. Therefore, the opposite party has no right in forfeiting the advance amount paid by the complainant. The Complainant specifically averred in his complaint that he was under the impression that the opposite party, definitely release his loan amount and as such he would have paid the balance sale consideration towards auction purchase as per the auction purchase. This averment is not disputed by the opposite party in their reply notice. 

 

7.         On going through the reply notice given by opposite party we find that they have forfeited the complainant’s earnest money as per the terms and conditions of the auction purchase and sold the subject matter of the vehicle for higher amount of Rs.1,00,000 to third opposite party.  It is pertinent to note that the opposite party did not issue any show cause notice to the complainant prior to taking decision of prior to canceling the auction purchase of complainant and selling the same vehicle to third party.  Hence, we find that the opposite party did not follow the contractual obligations in letter and sprit.  Hence, we find that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   Hence, These Point Nos. 1 and 2 are also answered accordingly.

 

8. Point No.3             As we have decided that the Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is hereby directed to refund of Rs.19,999 (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred and  Ninety Nine Only) the advance amount paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.  from  07.03.2015  to till the date of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost to the complainant.  This Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.

9.       In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is hereby directed to refund of Rs.19,999/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) the advance amount paid by the complainant  with interest at 9% p.a. from 07.03.2015 to till the date of this order and to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.

            Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 17^th June, 2022.

    Sd/                                                       Sd/-                                                          Sd/-

MEMBER – I                                            MEMBER – II                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS                

Ex.A1  24.03.2015         -      Registered post sent by Opposite Party

Ex.A2  30.03.2015         -      Telephone Message sent by Opposite Party

Ex.A3  13.04.2015         -      Copy of Notice

Ex.A4  20.06.2015         -      Reply Notice from Opposite Party      

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:                                       -NIL-

    Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                                             Sd/-                                                  MEMBER–I                                 MEMBER–II                                                       PRESIDENT