Date of filing : 24-09-2012
Date of order : 23-09-2016
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.260/12
Dated this, the 23rd day of September 2016
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Muhammed, S/o. Hassainer, : Complainant
H.No.13/121 of Chemnad Chembarika,
Po.Chembarika, Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.A.Balakrishnan Nair, Kasaragod)
1 The Manager, : Opposite parties
Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd,
Nullipady, Po. Kasaragod.
(Adv.K.A.Lalan, Kasaragod)
2 Crystal Credit Corporation, Ashirwad, Ist Floor,
23 Rehamanan Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai.01.
3 Sriram Finance Transport Co.Ltd, S.P. Complex,
2nd Floor, No.36, Waltex Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai.
4 Naz Motors, NA.Tower, Door No.111/260 A,
31-32, Ist Floor, M.G.Road, Kasaragod.
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The gist of the complainant’s case is that he is the owner of the vehicle KL-14-D-4141 Goods carriage and he obtained finance from the opposite party No.3 as per agreement dated 1-5-2008. The complainant failed to pay 7 instalments of Rs.5,500/- each and the opposite party No.3 seized the vehicle in the month of July 2009. After seizer complainant surrendered the original RC to opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 promised that the loan account will be closed and will return the cheque leaves and stamp paper to him. Since the opposite party did not intimate the RTO with regard to the seizer, RTO initiated RR proceedings against the complainant for the arrears of tax and the complainant compelled to remit Rs.8,887/-. Immediately the complainant asked the opposite parties to intimate the RTO about the stoppage and non-plying of the vehicle. Since the RC of the vehicle was already surrendered, he couldn’t apply for cancellation of the RC. Therefore the RTO issued a letter to pay Rs.11,280/- towards the arrears of tax up to 31-6-2012. The complainant suffered heavy hardships and loss due to the attitude of the opposite parties and hence the complaint.
2. Opposite party No.1 appeared and filed version subsequently opposite parties 2 to 4 were impleaded and eventhough opposite party No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel they have not filed any version. Opposite party No.4 remained absent and he was set exparte.
3. As per the version of opposite party No.1 the complainant availed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as hypothecation cum loan with 24 monthly instalments by entering into a tripartite agreement and hence two other parties are also necessary to adjudicate to this case. Opposite party No.1 further contended that he has no contractual liability with the complainant and no cheque leaves has been entrusted with opposite party at any point of time and also denied that the complainant paid 7 instalments and he could not pay the instalments and opposite party seized the vehicle with the help of Kasaragod police and after that the complainant surrendered the original RC to the opposite party and opposite party promised that they will return the cheque leaves and stamp papers to the complainant and settle the account. The complainant did not obtain any receipt from the opposite party No.1 since he believed the promise of opposite party No.1. It is also denied by the first opposite party that he failed to intimate to the RTO, Kasaragod with regard to the seizer of the vehicle and therefore RTO initiated RR proceedings for the arrears of tax and the complainant was compelled to pay Rs.8,887/- and also the opposite party failed to intimate the RTO about the stoppage and plying of the vehicle. The first opposite party never demanded any payment of hire purchase instalments after 2009 and there is no merit in the complaint and it is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on his side. He had adduced further chief examination and Ext.A8 and A8 (a) marked. Forum analyzed evidence and perused all the documents carefully. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased KL14-D-4141 Good carriage by obtaining finance from the opposite party No.1. And he had paid 7 instalments of Rs.5500/- each but failed to pay some instalments and hence opposite party No.1 seized the vehicle with the help of Kasaragod Police in the month of July 2009. After the seizer the complainant surrendered the original RC to the opposite partyNo.1 and opposite party No.1 promised that the loan account will be closed and they will return the cheque leaves and stamp paper to him. By believing the words of the opposite party No.1 he did not obtain any receipt for the same. But the opposite party No.1 failed to intimate the RTO, Kasaragod with regard to the seizer of the vehicle and RTO initiated RR proceedings for the arrears of tax against the complainant and he was compelled to remit Rs.8887/-. Eventhough the complainant requested opposite party No.1 to submits the original RC before RTO for the cancellation and also for the endorsement of non-user of the vehicle the same was not done by the opposite party. The certificate of fitness pertaining to the vehicle expired on 30-7-2009. The complainant could not do anything for cancellation since the RC was already surrendered to the opposite party. Thereafter again the RTO, Kasaragod issued a registered notice for remitting an amount of Rs.11280/- towards the arrears of tax up to 30-6-2012. On enquiry RTO, Kasaragod found that the opposite party repossessed the vehicle and it is under their custody. Because of the negligent attitude of the opposite party, the complainant sustained heavy loss and hardships and hence opposite party is liable to pay compensation for the damages sustained by the complainant herein. Exts.A1 to A7 are the documents which is pertaining to the vehicle involved in the case. Letter issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant, payment receipts 3 in numbers issued by the opposite party to the complainant, revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the complainant, receipt issued by the village officer, for the payment of tax, memo dated 30-6-2012 and the letter issued by the Transport Commissioner, Trivandrum would definitely prove the allegation of the complainant without any doubt. Ext.A7 is the very crucial document as far as the above case is concerned. Eventhough opposite party No.1 entered appearance and filed a version contending that they are not at all responsible for any loss sustained by the complainant. But while cross examining the PW1 he had categorically stated before the Forum that all the transactions pertaining to the vehicle involved in this case is done with opposite party No.1. Apart from that Ext.A8 and A8(a) i.e. the letter issued by opposite party No.1 and its postal envelopment are the documents which clearly proves the role of opposite party No.1 in this case. Eventhough they have taken a strong contention that they have no connection with the alleged incident at all Opposite party No.1 seized the vehicle with the help of the police and first opposite party promised the complainant that they will make arrangements to transfer the RC. On the basis of such an assurance given by opposite party no.1 the complainant herein surrendered the original RC to opposite party No.1 . Moreover it is also pertinent to note that as per the receipt the amount remitted by the complainant towards the loan transaction was with opposite party No.1 and 2. The cheque leaf of complainant was also entrusted to the first opposite party. None of the opposite parties entered into box to disprove the allegation of the complainant. The endorsement seen on Ext.A1 shows that it is with opposite party No.3 therefore opposite parties 1 & 3 are responsible for the damages sustained by the complainant herein.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties 1 & 3 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.20,167/- with 12% interest from 26-7-2011 till realization being the road tax paid by the complainant and also directed to return the cheque leaves No.401851 to 401854 drawn on federal bank, Kasaragod branch. Opposite party No.1 is directed to surrender the RC of the vehicle KL-14 D 4141 to the RTO, Kasaragod for cancellation of RC. The opposite parties 1 & 3 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation with a cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Copy of RC KL14-D-4141.
A2.1-5-08 letter issued by Crystal Credit Corporation to Mohammed.
A3(a) 3 Nos. Receipts issued by Crystal Credit Corporation
A4.Form No.1. Demand notice
A5.26-7-2011 tax receipt
A6.23-5-12 Memo issued by RTO, Kasaragod.
A7. 6-7-13 Letter issued by Transport Commissioner Kerala
A8. 13-10-15 letter sent by Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd to Muhammed
A8(a) Postal Envelop
PW1.C.H.Mohammad.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
PJ/ Forwarded by order
SENIOR SUPERINTEND
