Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

cc/139/2015

S.Srinivasan - 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.139 /2015

 

S.Srinivasan,

45, Adikesavaperumal Koil Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.

 

                                                                                    ….. 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, original RC Book and permit and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for loss of income and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards 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 09 AV 9042 through the 1^st opposite party/Sriram Transport Finance vide loan agreement dated 29.11.2007 for the value of Rs.1,60,884/-. 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 14.10.2011 to the 2^nd opposite party. The opposite parties have not handed over NOC, original R. C.  Book and Patta even after full loan amount was 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 amount 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 14.10.2011 given by the 3^rd opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party is not binding on this 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. The NOC was not issued due to the negligent act of the opposite parties and due to that the complainant suffered with mental agony and financial losses are invented for the purpose of the case.

          5. The loan tenure was ended on 01.11.2010 and from that date the complainant ought to have filed this complaint within two years. 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. The said vehicle is in the custody of the complainant even today. The R.C.Book of the vehicle is not with this 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party has not committed any deficiency or negligence in its service. The complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with complete facts. The complainant is trying to dupe this Forum and trying to mislead the case. The 2^nd opposite party deny that the complainant has been put to mental agony, physical hardship, financial loss and inconvenience on account of any alleged deficient act on the part of this opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant much less the amount claimed by the complainant as there has been no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of 2^nd opposite party. 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 36 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.4,469/- per month and in the  Ex.A1, RC of the vehicle TN 09 AV 9042 an endorsement of hypothecation was made in favour of the 1^st 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

          9. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the 3^rd opposite party is the broker of the 2^nd opposite party and 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  the receipts issued by him is marked Ex.A5 and he also issued Ex.A2 no due certificate  though  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 and they neither replied the notice nor issued NOC and RC book 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 of the 2^nd opposite party and he issued Ex.A5 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 3^rd 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 a 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 was also closed. Therefore, we hold that the 3^rd opposite party after remitting the entire amount to the 2^nd opposite party he issued Ex.A2 no due letter for the complainant vehicle and NOC may be issued.

13. The 3^rd opposite party wrote Ex.A2 letter to issue NOC to the 2^nd opposite party establishes that the 3^rd opposite party is the broker of the 2^nd opposite party and the same is accepted. The 1^st opposite party issued letter Ex.A4 to the complainant that he is due to pay a sum of Rs.98,937/-. 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 installments only to the 3^rd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party given demand to pay Rs.98,937/- shows that the balance amount, out of the due amount of Rs. 1,60,884/- paid to the 3^rd opposite party was reached the 1^st opposite party and that is why he had issued Ex.A4 demand only for lesser amount is accepted. The above circumstance proves that the 3^rd opposite party collected the installments from the complaint and 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 from the complainant, the 1^st opposite party owes a duty      to issue NOC and original RC Book 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 original RC book and permit 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 is the 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 as argued by the complainant, the original RC book is with the 1^st opposite party is accepted and he is liable to return the same. The 1^st opposite party himself admitted that the entire loan on behalf of the complainant was paid to him and hence he is also liable to issue NOC to him. Since RC 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, original RC book and permit to the complainant.

          16. Due to NOC and RC book not issued to him, 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 certificates not issued to the complainant is an unfair trade practice. Therefore for the above said deficiencies, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation would meet end 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, original RC book and permit to the complainant in respect of his Auto Rickshaw TN 09 AV 9042  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. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand 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                     R.C.Book Xerox

Ex.A2 dated 14.10.2011                   Settlement letter from 3^rd opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 17.10.2013                   Representations to the Commissioner of Police on

                                                   30.01.2012 and a letter the company

 

Ex.A4 dated 29.09.2010                   Letter from M/s. Shriram Transport Finance

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Some Receipts for the amount received in cash by

                                                    HUFC Banking Solutions on various dated.

 

Ex.A6 dated 31.03.2012                   Copy of the FIR No.588/2010

 

Ex.A7 dated 04.08.2015                   Legal Notice

 

Ex.A8 dated NIL                     Acknowledgement Card

 

Ex.A9 dated 22.07.2015                   Statement of Account

 

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

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Loan Agreement

 

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

 

Ex.B2 dated  23.02.2016                  Copy of Award passed in ARB.No.274/2016

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT